July 8, 2021 | International, Aerospace
Satellite imagery provider Planet to go public
The company expects to merge with a special purpose acquisition company by the end of the year.
July 27, 2018 | International, Land
From shelters to vehicles to rucks, here’s how the Army is changing its command posts
By: Todd South
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — As the Army looks to shrink its battlefield footprint, its researchers and engineers are finding ways to make the nerve center of the battle — command posts — lighter, more capable and easier to set up and tear down.
A recently concluded three-year program aimed to do just that, with everything from the shelter devices used to house a command post's gear, to refitting old and new vehicles, to moving an entirely vehicle-mounted communications system off the truck and into the ruck, cutting its weight by two-thirds in the process.
These are some of the ways that experts with the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command's Communications–Electronics Center are finding to make command posts more mobile, resilient and effective against enemies that can quickly target and destroy massed formations.
Some of the advancements include the Expeditionary Command Post shelter, a 20-foot box with integrated power outlets, air conditioning, network cabling and video distribution system. It's containerized so that it can be hauled on a truck or sling loaded under a helicopter.
A four-soldier team can set up the structure within 30 minutes as the remaining command personnel hook up the computers, radios and other devices inside of the structure.
Jim Bell, operations expert with RDECOM, told Army Times that soldiers with the 1st Armored Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team set up the shelter in those time frames during field exercises. And during an experiment at Fort Hood, Texas, soldiers moved the shelter with a CH-47 Chinook helicopter.
An even more mobile option that researchers have put together is the Light-Mobile Command Post, a pull-out table and tent combination that is installed in the back of a Humvee. It includes fixed TV monitors, built-in radio networks, cabling and computers.
The system was designed primarily for light infantry units, but a similar configuration has also been installed on tracked command vehicles for armor units.
This post can be voice comm and position location tracking operational within 15 minutes and fully operational in 30 minutes.
Another Humvee-based answer to mobile command is a reconfigured command and control vehicle dubbed the Command Post Platform–Improved. It has a built-in power and cooling system and spots for two cases containing the capacity for six computer servers, enough to run a brigade's worth of data.
The setup includes seven radio nets, HF, UHF, VHF and SATCOM, and links for fiber optic, standard and secret lines of communication.
A small but important feature allows the user to power the systems from either vehicle or external power. The system also has a 15-minute power backup so that the servers can continue to run as power is switched.
Beyond a structure or tent solution, researchers have also outfitted small and mid-size all-terrain vehicles, specifically the Polaris MRZR. The focus of these is to provide airborne or air assault operations with a full-fledged command post in a smaller package.
The smaller MRZR uses a modular system that can be pulled and reinstalled quickly into another vehicle, should the ATV be disabled.
And it has an extra-powerful alternator that can produce 120 amps, double the amperage of a Humvee alternator.
It also includes a first-ever all-around handset that can plug in and communicate whether the speaker is using radio, Voice over Internet Protocol or VOIP, and other computer-based voice applications.
On top of all these advancements, the Army also is working on reducing what was 60 pounds worth of gear that previously was only used during mounted operations into a much lighter, man-portable package.
“They were ripping stuff off of vehicles and coming up with a power source,” said Brad McNeilly-Anta, command post consultant for RDECOM. “That wound up with a 60-pound item, and they were jumping with it at the 82nd Airborne.”
Not the most convenient package to haul to the ground.
The expeditionary Joint Battle Command Platform is a line of sight, two-way transmission that includes a tablet, battery, peripherals and a new fueled power source that allows it to run for more than 24 hours of continuous operations.
Adjustments and replacements to the ruggedized computer, power source, transceiver and encryption device have trimmed the weight down to 23 pounds.
Experimenters adapted a 1 L methanol power source to run the system but have also successfully experimented with windshield wiper fluid to run the system, McNeilly-Anta said.
On the same subject
-
-
August 29, 2018 | International, Naval
Navy’s Next Large Surface Combatant Will Draw From DDG-51, DDG-1000 — But Don’t Call it a Destroyer Yet
By: Megan Eckstein THE PENTAGON – The Navy will buy the first of its Future Surface Combatants in 2023 – a large warship that will be built to support the Arleigh Burke Flight III combat system and will pull elements from the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) and Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) destroyer designs. The combatant – not dubbed a cruiser, and potentially not dubbed a destroyer either – will be bigger and more expensive than the Arleigh Burke Flight III design and will have more room to grow into for decades to come, the director of surface warfare (OPNAV N96) told USNI News today. Future Surface Combatant refers to a family of systems that includes a large combatant akin to a destroyer, a small combatant like the Littoral Combat Ship or the upcoming frigate program, a large unmanned surface vessel and a medium USV, along with an integrated combat system that will be the common thread linking all the platforms. Navy leadership just recently signed an initial capabilities document for the family of systems, after an effort that began in late 2017 to define what the surface force as a whole would be required to do in the future and therefore how each of the four future platforms could contribute to that overall mission requirement. With the ICD now signed and providing the service with an idea of how many of each platform would be needed in a future fleet and how each would contribute as a sensor, a shooter or a command and control asset, Surface Warfare Director Adm. Ron Boxall and his staff are now able to begin diving into the finer details of what each platform would look like. The first to be tackled is the large combatant, Boxall told USNI News today. He noted the effort would be more like the move from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer – where the same combat capability was kept, but housed in a more suitable hull – rather than the move from the Spruance-class destroyer to the cruiser, which maintained the same hull design but added in new combat capability. After the addition of the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to the DDGs' Aegis Combat System to create the Flight III design, Boxall said the resulting warfighting capability is one the Navy can use for years to come. “We have a new capability on that hull now, so everything's going good – except for, as we look towards going further, we know we've maxed out that hull footprint,” Boxall said of the Arleigh Burke-class hull design, power-generation capability and more. “So the key elements that we're looking at in this work we're doing on the requirements side is, keep the requirements about the same as DDG Flight III, but now look at what do we need a new hull to do.” USNI News first reported last month that the large combatant would pair a new hull with the Flight III combat system. The Navy will spend about the next six months having that conversation about what the new hull will need, though he suggested to USNI News that it would need sufficient space to carry helicopters and unmanned systems; it would need to support long-range missiles and weapons; it would have to include command and control systems able to support a staff onboard for air defense or offensive surface capability, much like the cruiser does today with the air defense commander role for a carrier strike group; it may incorporate DDG-1000's signature controls and integrated power system; and it will certainly have to be flexible and modular enough to quickly undergo upgrades and modernizations in the future as new systems are developed that the Navy will want to incorporate into the next block buy of large combatants or back fit fielded ones. Though there has been much speculation about whether the large combatant would use an existing design or a new design, Boxall said there really are no designs out there that meet the Navy's needs without significant modifications. Whereas the ongoing frigate design effort was able to mandate that bidders use mature parent designs, Boxall said “a lot of people in the world make frigates. Not many people make large surface combatants of the size and capability that we need. So we've got to kind of look to our portfolio of blueprints that we have as a starting point, and we'll edit and modify the hull and design things as we go forward.” “I think what you're going to see won't be a huge deviation from things we have already, but at the same point, we are going to be making changes to anything we have” already in the fleet, he added. In a nod towards the idea the next large combatant will share the same combat system as DDG Flight III and will perform much the same role in the fleet, Boxall said the Navy is starting with the DDG-51 Flight III capability development document (CDD); will go through a Large Surface Combatant Requirements Evaluation Team effort with requirements, acquisition and engineering personnel from the Navy and industry; and after six months call the finished product a “modified Flight III CDD.” Once that modified CDD is complete, it will be clearer how much the future large surface combatant will resemble its predecessor and how much it will be a new class of ship – which will likely determine its name. “It is the big question: what do you call the future large surface combatant? I don't know. I don't think you call it a cruiser. I don't think you call it a destroyer. Maybe – I don't know what it is,” Boxall said, noting that he has commanded both a cruiser and destroyer and that they get used in much the same fashion, save for the cruiser's role as the air defense commander ship, which the future large surface combatant will have the capability of doing with its command and control suite. Once the first large combatant is designed and purchased in the 2023 “block” – following the current block-buy of Flight III DDGs from Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, which spans from Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022 – new blocks will be planned for every five years. As USNI News has reported, this block structure, laid out in a Surface Combatant Capability Evolution Plan, would allow the insertion of new hardware and software in a predictable timeline. This would help researchers and developers in the government and in industry understand when a new capability would have to be matured by to be included in the next block design, and anything not quite ready yet could wait until the next block. This setup is much like the Virginia-class attack submarine's block upgrade approach to adding in new capabilities, and its Acoustic Rapid Commercial-off-the-shelf Insertion (ARCI) process of adding new capabilities in via new construction and back fitting existing subs. However, Boxall noted the surface community had the added challenge of managing this block buy and upgrade effort across four or more types of surface combatants, compared to just one class of attack submarines. Unlike before, when the surface community would undergo a massive planning effort – like the CG(X) cruiser replacement design that ultimately was too expensive and not accepted by the Navy – and then cease planning for many years before undertaking another massive effort, Boxall said he hoped the block upgrades would create a “heartbeat type of effort, where you always have something going on.” https://news.usni.org/2018/08/28/navys-next-large-surface-combatant-will-draw-ddg-51-ddg-1000-dont-call-destroyer
-
February 11, 2019 | International, Naval, C4ISR
Lockheed Martin Awarded $184 Million To Continue Providing The U.S. Navy With Electronic Warfare Systems
SYRACUSE, N.Y., Feb. 11, 2019 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) continues to support the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and warships with advanced electronic warfare capabilities. The Navy awarded Lockheed Martin a $184 million firm-fixed-price modification to exercise options for full rate production of Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 systems. “We are honored to continue to provide this critical fleet defense capability that our warfighters rely on while they perform their mission worldwide,” said Joe Ottaviano, Integrated Electronic Warfare program director, Rotary and Mission Systems. “Threats are changing and evolving faster with advanced technologies and the SEWIP system will give the U.S. Navy the advantage of remaining one step ahead of our adversaries.” SEWIP is an evolutionary acquisition and incremental development program to upgrade the existing AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare system. SEWIP Block 2 will expand upon the receiver/antenna group necessary to keep capabilities current with the pace of the threat and to yield improved system integration. Under this full-rate production contract, Lockheed Martin will continue providing and upgrading the AN/SLQ-32 systems on U.S. aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and other warships with key capabilities that determine if the electronic sensors of potential foes are tracking the ship. The U.S. Navy awarded the company an initial $148.9 million contract for full rate production of SEWIP Block 2 systems in 2016 with four additional option years to upgrade the fleet's electronic warfare capabilities so warfighters can respond to evolving threats. Lockheed Martin has provided the U.S. Navy with SEWIP Block 2 development, production and engineering services since 2009 and has been delivering and supporting the installation of SEWIP Block 2 systems as the Navy upgrades electronic warfare defenses against anti-ship missile threats fleet wide. Additionally, AN/SLQ-32(V)6 Design Agent Engineering Services are being performed at the Electronic Warfare Center of Excellence in the Syracuse, New York, facility. For additional information, visit www.lockheedmartin.com/ew. https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019-02-11-Lockheed-Martin-Awarded-184-Million-to-Continue-Providing-the