Israeli firm sells over 150 drones to European country

On the same subject

• 

  November 5, 2024 | International, C4ISR, Security

  Joint ODNI, FBI, and CISA Statement | CISA

• 

  August 5, 2020 | International, Naval

  Stackley: Combined L3Harris Technology Will Compete to Build New Navy Distributed Battle Networks

  By: Megan Eckstein August 4, 2020 3:25 PM A year after L3 and Harris merged into a single $18-billion defense company, the corporation is finding its formerly siloed components can come together to meet some of the Navy's and joint force's most complex needs. Sean Stackley, president of the Integrated Mission Systems segment for L3Harris Technologies, told USNI News in an interview that L3 and Harris each had important pieces of the puzzle to help the Navy achieve its distributed maritime operations concept. But Stackley, who previously served as the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition from 2008 to 2017 and as the acting secretary of the Navy from January to August 2017, said the key to DMO is not just fielding new platforms and tools but rather managing how information flows throughout the network, he said. Under the Navy's DMO vision, rather than deploying concentrated strike groups to a few places around the globe, the Navy would have many dispersed ships and planes that could share data to create a combined picture of the battlespace. He described the future fight as a combination of aircraft, ships, submarines and ground vehicles – manned and unmanned – all with sensors and communications devices, feeding data into a battle management system. The challenge will be the ordnance-to-target ratio and picking out the right targets to control the fight. Before the fight starts, the U.S. needs to ensure it has control of the EM spectrum so that network of platforms can communicate, sense and target. “It's really about linking sensors, providing assured communications, having the ability to disrupt the enemy's communications in their operating picture. It's everything from electronic support to electronic attack. ... That is a tremendous challenge because you have to work across the services, work across the platforms, you have to work across industry, you have to work across systems. So there's not one contract that's going to go out for DMO; it's going to be incremental. It's going to be an incremental approach to building this capability over time, over systems. And frankly the Air Force and the Navy are taking different approaches. I think there are some best practices across the services that they'll benefit by as each of these get more mature,” he explained, saying those were his personal views and not the company's. “I'm frankly studying the way the Air Force is approaching ABMS [Advanced Battle Management System], and I see a lot of strengths to their approach. There's a lot of parallel activities to the way they're contracting ABMS that should allow, if we do it right, should allow the incremental steps that need to be taken to be done in parallel as opposed to one at a time in a series. And I'm frankly also spending time with the Navy trying to link up the Navy's approach to DMO with the Air Force's approach to ABMS, to at least study – the services should be studying each other's approaches – and best practices should emerge, because otherwise we won't get there, it will take too long.” For example, he said, the Navy is preparing to contract for a ship-based signals intelligence program called Spectral. It also has an upcoming competition for a Spear program for electro-optical/infrared targeting. Under DMO, Stackley said, those two could be approached in parallel to ensure the whole network has access to the data they produce, instead of pursuing them separately and waiting for someone down the line to integrate the systems into a larger network. “Traditional (acquisition) says you do the standalone upgrades; inside of DMO, you're constantly looking at the total framework architecture, how do these capabilities integrate” on the front end “so that on the back end you are, in fact, building a distributed maritime operational capability,” he said. Stackley said the company is positioned to adapt to the changing requirements of DMO. “We are on the ocean floor, and we operate from the depths of the sea to the depths of space. We are in every domain. We operate across the entire kill chain, from sensing, communications, tracking, targeting, right down to putting ordnance on target. We operate across the kill chain and across the entire electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. In the acoustic realm, we operate below 10 hertz, and then you move into the [radio frequency] and in the RF end of the EM spectrum we're operating above 50 gigahertz. So we dominate – I would say spectrum superiority is one of our strengths. And we do this to provide capabilities, solutions, for national security, ours and our allies.” The company's advantage is based on “two companies a couple of years ago that had a large number of stand-alone capabilities seeing a match in terms of our separate capabilities, and also seeing the power that comes through integration of these capabilities, understanding where the customer is going in terms of the future fight where that EM spectrum, that spectrum superiority, is so critical. Whether you're talking about the Navy's strategy, the Navy's vision for distributed maritime operations, or the Air Force's advanced battle management system, it is the same capability the services are looking for, which is to have the advanced sensors at the forward edge, have the information that they collect communicated back through secure data links to platforms, have that information integrated into a common picture so that we can control the spectrum, we can ensure our communications, we can disrupt [adversaries'] communications, and we can pull the information from our sensors and get it to where it's most needed so that when the time comes we can put ordnance on target rapidly and reliably,” Stackley said. The two companies had different tools in their portfolios prior to the merger that contribute to this new ability to network together tools for fighting in the EM spectrum. For example, “Harris focuses on tactical communications, electronic warfare, space payloads and supports FAA air traffic control modernization. L3's portfolio is a bit more diverse and includes electronic components, aircraft modernization, flight simulation, UAS/UUVs, airport security and C4ISR components and subsystems,” Defense News quoted Byron Callan, an analyst for Capital Alpha Partners, as writing in a note to investors ahead of the merger. In the interview, Stackley used undersea warfare as an example of where L3 and Harris have been to provide the Navy options to support DMO. On the seabed, the company leveraged each of the halves' legacy systems to create an underwater acoustic system that won a prime contract with the Navy – something neither L3 nor Harris could have done before the merger. “Within the first year, we're offering integrated solutions to the customer that prior to the merger we would never have seen and would never have found together,” Stackley said. The combined portfolio also includes experience with unmanned underwater vessels. L3Harris is competing for the Medium UUV program that will replace separate medium UUV systems for the explosive ordnance disposal and the submarine communities. Stackley said the company had an already-existing, highly modular design that allowed it to work with Navy labs to integrate and operate advanced payloads at sea while the Navy was developing its specifications for the MUUV program. The company's UUV experience, Stackley said, coupled with underwater acoustic systems and above-water communications capabilities that reside within L3Harris, means it can offer a package that allows the Navy to receive real-time or near-real-time updates from this UUV. The company also recently won a contract with the Navy to design and build at least one Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MUSV), with options for more vehicles. Stackley said L3Harris had extensive experience with USVs, including through the Overlord large USV demonstrator program run by the Pentagon's Strategic Capabilities Office. For its MUSV offering, the company is partnering with Gibbs and Cox, which also participated in the Overlord program. Through its in-water testing, L3Harris has learned about autonomy software, vehicle reliability, and command and control. Stackley said the company, outside of the MUSV program, wants to take its USV a step further and demonstrate to the Navy another option for combining several legacy L3 and Harris technologies. The company builds the signals intelligence system on the Air Force's RC-135 surveillance aircraft. That system had been stovepiped in the company's aircraft systems division before, but Stackley said L3Harris plans to use that as the basis for the upcoming Spectral competition, which will be a ship-based SIGINT tool. L3Harris will adapt that system for integration on a medium USV, he said, thereby demonstrating “a sensing capability, where you start with a reliable unmanned surface vessel that has endurance on station, more so than an aircraft; you give it a sensor package that [meets Navy and Joint Force needs]; and then you add to that the data links that L3Harris provides and the secure communications that we provide, so that now you've got a node on the network that's passing critical information to the operating force from an unmanned vessel.” He made clear that the SIGINT package on the USV is not part of the Navy's current MUSV program but that L3Harris would pitch the capability to the service. https://news.usni.org/2020/08/04/stackley-combined-l3harris-technology-will-compete-to-build-new-navy-distributed-battle-networks

• 

  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/