HII is awarded advanced planning contract fot USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) RCOH

On the same subject

• 

  December 27, 2023 | International, Naval

  Surface navy emphasizes frigates in its latest modernization plans

  The director of surface warfare provides his vision for modernization over the next 15 years.

• 

  November 21, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  What’s standing in the way of an Arab NATO?

  By: Agnes Helou BEIRUT — The so-called Arab NATO, a U.S.-led initiative, has the potential to address threats to the Gulf and the Middle East. So what is delaying the creation of such an alliance? An Arab NATO would consist of six Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar) plus Egypt and Jordan. “It is an American idea that has been approved by the Arab Gulf countries, but it didn't take shape yet. I expect such a NATO to be successful, but we are still at the beginning,” explained Maj. Gen. Hamad bin Abdallah al-Khalifah, the commander of the Royal Bahraini Air Force. Last month, the Bahraini minister of foreign affairs said at the IISS Manama Dialogue 2018 that the idea of an Arab NATO would become reality by 2019. One sign of progress: Gulf countries already share military capabilities and in joint training and operations, such as the Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen. “We have been sharing information between coalition fighters all along the operations, and we have been training alongside with the Gulf countries through joint exercises, and this enhances our capabilities,” al-Khalifah said. On the other hand, there are clear challenges ahead for such an Arab NATO. These include issues of interoperability; the eight nations operated different types of military platforms. For instance, Egypt operates the Russian Mig-25M and the American F-16, while Saudi Arabia operates the American F-15SA and the European Eurofighter Typhoon and the UAE operates the F-16 and the French Mirage. Replying to a question about data sharing between various platforms, Rick Groesch, Lockheed Martin vice president for the Middle East, said: “When a country buys U.S. equipment, there are certain things signed up in their agreement. In other words, a country can't put a non- U.S. weapon on a U.S. weapon system without approval from the government.” But data sharing is not the only obstacle for an Arab Nato. The relationship between Qatar and other Gulf countries following a blockade of the former remains unresolved. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain cut relations with Qatar in June 2017 in a form of land, maritime and air blockade. Another shared concern among the eight countries is Iran and its proxy militias. Commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command, Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, mentioned Iran specifically as a threat to stability in the Gulf region, during the 2nd Manama Airpower Symposium on Nov. 13. “Iran continues to cause risks to other nations and act as a destabilizing agent across this region. They aim to disrupt the balance of power and place at risk the livelihood of citizens,” Guastella said. “When the Iranian military exercises are aimed at the blocking at the Strait of Hormuz, the potential of miscalculation of military intent has strategic consequences. Their actions are directly aimed to threaten all of our economies." Observing similar alliances may prove helpful in standing up an Arab NATO, he added. “There is value in looking at what NATO has been able to do and the successes of an alliance that has guaranteed essentially stability for the region there for decades," he said. "Could some of those lessons apply here? Could some similar alliance of like-minded nations in the Gulf come together in a way that offers the same stability it is offered? Could some of this be applied here? I think the answer is yes, and I think that the step to reach it should be considered by all nations involved.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2018/11/20/whats-standing-in-the-way-of-an-arab-nato

• 

  June 18, 2019 | International, C4ISR, Other Defence

  What’s the best way for the Army to demonstrate force via electronic warfare?

  By: Mark Pomerleau When the Russian military attacked Ukraine, it prevented units from communicating with each other by turning to powerful electronic jamming tools. The U.S. Army, however, is not interested in the same raw demonstration of force. Instead, U.S. officials are following a philosophy that relies on “surgical” attacks. This could include creating an image on enemy's radar, projecting an aircraft at one location when enemies think it is at another, or impairing the command and control links of adversaries' unmanned aerial systems. “When the Russians emit like that, they're letting the entire world know where they are,” Col. Mark Dotson, the Army's capabilities manager for electronic warfare said on a media call with two reporters June 14. “What we're looking at in the future ... [is] surgical electronic attack, electronic intrusion or 21st century electron attack. We're looking for much more discrete ways of conducting electronic attack. Using low power to affect the signal and to affect it in such a way that it may not even be detectable that you're interfering with what they're doing.” Dotson said instead of sheer power, future capabilities should focus on the end result, such as whether it's hurting an enemy's ability to communicate or to use radar. “There's a variety of different approaches that can be taken to create the effect necessary without having to do what we refer to as traditional jamming, which is just increasing the signal to noise ratio,” Dave May, senior cyber intelligence advisor at the Cyber Center of Excellence, said. Finding materiel solutions The officials spoke at the conclusion of Cyber Quest, a week-long technology experimentation that took place at Fort Gordon. Cyber Quest is a prototyping event that allows the Army to test technologies and concepts from industry to help solve future problems. This year, Army leaders focused on several areas. They include: Improving the requirements for the Terrestrial Layer System, an integrated electronic warfare and signals intelligence system that will provide a much-needed jamming capability to formations; Identifying candidates for rapid acquisition, and Conducting risk reduction against current programs and identifying candidates for electronic warfare capabilities to outfit the Intelligence, Information, Cyber, Electronic Warfare and Space detachment or I2CEWS, a battalion-sized unit described as the “brain” of the Army's multidomain task force. “Cyber Quest helps ... in that we are able to take these difficult challenges to industry, walk them through what we're trying to accomplish and let industry come back to us with novel approaches,” May said. “This pre-prototyping philosophy allows us to work through concepts, [tactics, techniques and procedures], and actually start the concept for doctrine.” At Cyber Quest, Army officials focused on the overall TLS system and two subsets: the Tactical Electronic Warfare System (TEWS) and the Tactical Signals Intelligence Vehicle. Both are integrated platforms the Army is using to experiment with different technologies that would allow for sensing, signals intelligence, electronic warfare and RF-enabled cyberattacks. May said these subsystems are in the pre-prototype phase. Army leaders also tested a spectrum analyzer tool that will notify commanders of the health of their systems within the electromagnetic spectrum. Such a tool would provide details on the footprint of blue force electromagnetic spectrum. The Army's current spectrum management program of record, Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool, only offers details on red force's in the spectrum relying on sensors in the field. By contrast, the spectrum analyzer tool the Army looked at during Cyber Quest is a handheld system that doesn't need to rely on the sensors that belong to tactical operational tools. There's been a focus across all the services in recent years to better understand their own electromagnetic spectrum as a way to prevent themselves from being detected and jammed or detected and killed. The details for when these capabilities would reach soldiers, however, is still in flux. If the Army has approved a requirement, a new product can be fielded to certain units under what the Army refers to as a buy, try, decide model. Capabilities can be fielded faster if they are funneled through the Rapid Equipping Force, though, they wouldn't become a program of record, but could be fielded to operational units that need it between 90 days and six months. If a capability goes through the Rapid Capabilities Office, it could take six to 18 months to get to units, Dotson said. May said the goal for TLS is to deliver a “validated requirement” to the program manager by third quarter of fiscal year 2020. That puts fielding in the 2022 or 2023 timeframe. Officials were a bit more circumspect on the Multi-Functional Electronic Warfare Air Large program, a first of its kind brigade-organic aerial electronic attack pod that will be mounted on unmanned systems. Lockheed Martin was awarded was awarded two sequential 18-month contracts valued at $18 million in January. Officials said it should be flying within the next 12 months but added that they want to see the product that ends up flying before forecasting a timeline for when it would reach units. https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2019/06/17/whats-the-best-way-for-the-army-to-demonstrate-force-via-electronic-warfare/