Back to news

July 9, 2021 | International, Aerospace

Les Armées face au défi des drones

Faisant suite aux deux rapports parlementaires à l'Assemblée nationale et au Sénat, Le Figaro consacre une double page aux drones militaires. Pour la ministre des Armées, la menace des drones « s'accroît et s'accélère », a-t-elle déclaré en assistant, à Biscarrosse, à un premier tir antidrone par laser. « C'est un véritable enjeu technologique, car il s'agit de faire face à une menace qui ne peut pas toujours être prise en compte par notre défense aérienne classique : elle est trop petite, trop lente, trop basse et avec une signature radar trop faible » poursuit la ministre. Pour y répondre, les systèmes Milad ou Bassalt conçus avec le groupe ADP ont déjà été utilisés à l'occasion de la fête nationale ou du sommet du G7 à Biarritz. En outre, le système Arlad est capable de détecter un objet volant entre 700 mètres et 1 kilomètre et d'orienter un tir de destruction automatique. Toutefois, la « chaîne détection-identification-neutralisation n'est pas encore consolidée » reconnaissent les armées. Les régiments vont donc aussi s'équiper de fusils brouilleurs Nerod. Dans le domaine offensif, la France cherche à rattraper son retard. « Nous allons multiplier le nombre d'aéronefs au sein de l'armée de terre par plus de 10 pour passer de 250 en 2017 à 3 000 en 2023 », explique le lieutenant-colonel Pierre-Yves. Par ailleurs, s'agissant des munitions rôdeuses, le général François Lecointre, chef d'état-major des armées, s'est montré clair : « l'emploi de munitions rôdeuses n'est pas acceptable d'un point de vue éthique. Les drones que nous utilisons permettent de contrôler la munition tirée sur la cible qui est identifiée précisément jusqu'au moment du déclenchement du tir ».

On the same subject

  • DARPA issues solicitation for moving-target recognition project

    July 22, 2020 | International, Land

    DARPA issues solicitation for moving-target recognition project

    Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department's advanced research arm issued a broad agency announcement July 15 for technology that would use algorithms to identify moving military ground vehicles. The Moving Target Recognition program from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Strategic Technology Office is a “vital part” of DARPA's “Mosaic Warfare” vision, in which each weapon system is one “tile” in a large force package that overwhelms the adversary. For the program, DARPA is interested in algorithms and collection techniques that allow synthetic aperture radar, or SAR, sensors to “detect, geolocate, and image moving ground targets,” the announcement read. If the goals of the project are met, the MTR program will then work to develop automatic target recognition algorithms for the moving target images. “Emphasis is on military vehicle targets, including slow moving vehicles whose SAR signatures are superimposed on clutter,” the announcement noted. Test for moving target recognition will include airborne data collection experiments to test and evaluate the effectiveness of algorithms. Under the contract, performers will be required to provide the airborne radar sensors and flight services, while the government team will design experiments with moving ground vehicles. DARPA anticipates handing out multiple awards. The MTR program has two phases. Phase one will focus on SAR moving target detection, geolocation and imaging, according to the announcement. It has a performance period of two years and a six-month option. Phase two, which is solicited through the July 15 notice, will center on automatic target recognition. Second phase instructions will be provided to the phase one performers before the end of the phase one base period. No award amount was provided. The U.S. Army is also working through the challenges associated with advanced target recognition capabilities, such as ensuring that algorithms receive adequate and sufficient data to mature and learn. “If you're training an algorithm to recognize cats, you can get on the internet and pull up hundreds of thousands of pictures of cats,” Gen. Mike Murray, commander of Army Futures Command, said in June. “You can't do that for a T-72 [Russian tank]. You can get a bunch of pictures, but are they at the right angles, lighting conditions, vehicle sitting camouflaged to vehicle sitting open desert?” DARPA's mosaic warfare effort includes several other projects under the Strategic Technology Office, including one that would automate aerial dogfighting. The office is also developing two complementary systems that would identify combat systems in an area available for support missions and quickly plan their route to an area. https://www.c4isrnet.com/home/2020/07/21/darpa-issues-solicitation-for-moving-target-recognition-project/

  • Australia cancels Lockheed Martin military satellite project

    November 4, 2024 | International, Land

    Australia cancels Lockheed Martin military satellite project

  • Here is what Marines really need for realistic simulations training

    October 1, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

    Here is what Marines really need for realistic simulations training

    By: Todd South MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va., ― Last year at the annual military expo here, Commandant Gen. Robert B. Neller told industry his vision for simulations is a kind of Star Trek-like holodeck in which any Marine could fight any battle on any terrain in virtual reality. Since then, Secretary of Defense James Mattis has said that close combat infantry units should fight 25 battles before they ever taste real combat. This year one of the Marines in charge of bringing those simulation dreams to reality laid down some of the tangible needs of the Corps now and in the near-term. Lt. Col. Byron Harder, with Training and Education Command's capabilities division, told the audience at this year's Modern Day Marine military expo that while live training will always remain the standard against which a unit's readiness is measured, even live training has its limits. It costs a lot of money to ship Marines out to Twentynine Palms or other areas. It costs money to fire munitions. Some of those munitions can't be fired in most areas. Some of the advanced weapons, such as cyber and electronic warfare types, can't be used for fear of damaging civilian networks or facilities in the United States. And some really advanced weapons can't be demonstrated where just anyone can see them in action, thus revealing our tech to adversaries. And that is where simulations can help bridge the gap. But first, there's a list of things that must come to fruition. Much of that is going to be software and bandwidth, basically getting better versions of terrains and simulations that are more realistic and can accommodate as much as a division's worth of players and an equally complex, simulated adversary. But some items are smaller and more hands-on, like better virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. Those headsets are key since the Marines want them to work not as they do now, with pounds of cabling in bulky indoor shooting simulators but light with long-lasting batteries that can be taken in the field and on deployment. Harder said a goggle that is about twice the weight of existing eye protection, perhaps with its power source somewhere on the body, is likely five to 10 years away based on his survey of the field. There's another an ongoing need: better drones. But instead of longer flying, large-scale drones that can coordinate complex fires and sensors for the operational environment, what Harder said simulations needs are smaller drones that can fly lower, giving Marines a street-level, detailed view of the battlespace so they can create their own terrain maps and fight the simulated fight in the areas they'll really be operating in. And those video feeds that are now on every ISR platform in the real world? Simulations need them too, to be realistic. That means game designers have to have human-like activity going on in areas instead of some digital “blob” representing enemies. That way, when a commander wants to zoom in on a tactical frame in the game, they'll be able to do it just like in theater. Which brings it to one of the more ambitious items beyond terrain and hardware: getting simulations to act more like humans. As it works now, unit commanders set up their forces, work their mission sets and then the virtual “forces” collide and often a scripted scenario plays out. Not too realistic. What's needed is both civilian simulations to act like civilian populations might act in the real world and the same for the enemy, taking advantages, fighting and withdrawing. But one step further is key: The enemy has to talk back. When a commander finishes the fight, they should be able to query the virtual enemy and figure out why it did what it did, how it gained a certain advantage. And it shouldn't take a programmer to “talk” with the simulation. Units communicate via voice and chat. That's how simulations users must be able to talk with their simulated civilians, allies and enemies, in plain language. These pursuits are not happening in a vacuum. This April for the first time Marine pilots at both Yuma, Arizona, and Camp Pendleton, California, ran flight simulations coordinated with ground units at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California. Those were done at a battalion level with a short prep time, far different than the large-scale Marine Expeditionary Unit or Marine Expeditionary Brigade-sized training that is typical. That is part of a larger effort to create a “plug-and-play” type of training module that any battalion, and later smaller units, can use at home station or on deployment to conduct complex, coordinated training. What made that work new was pairing legacy systems with a variety of software and operating systems between them. That's another example of what needs to be fixed. Marines and other services are, in many cases, using systems that were designed decades apart and creating a labyrinth of patchwork methods to get the hardware to work together when it wasn't built for that type of operation. The new systems must be open architecture so that new tech, new weapons and new terrain can be added on the fly. But also secure enough to operate across networks and not be spied upon by those who would want a peek at our tactics. Across the infantry battalions Marines received new gear last year called Tactical Decision Kits. These allow for squad to company-sized elements to do video game-play for their unit exercises, complete with NFL-style replay of engagements and decisions. That's a low-level example of one thing that's lacking in current training, Harder said. Right now the main piece of tech for a Marine commander conducting an after action review is a pen and paper pad. But with ISR drones, body cams and sensors, Marines in the near-term future should be able to monitor individual Marine's energy and hydration levels, where they pointed their weapon, when they fired, how many rounds, if they hit their target, even where their eyes were looking while on patrol. And, if on deployment, Marines can't rely on a cadre of civilian contractors back home to run their hardware. To that end, the Corps began two courses last year, the Simulation Professional Course and the Simulations Specialist Course. Both give Marines in infantry units experience setting up simulations and running the games for their units. They input training objectives and can understand and put together training for the unit staff or just for their fire team back in the barracks. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/09/28/here-is-the-current-checklist-for-marine-corps-simulations-training

All news