November 23, 2024 | International, Naval
June 11, 2018 | International, Land
Marines want a better way do force-on-force tactical shooting training
After decades of using laser-type devices for shooting simulations and force-on-force tactical warfighting, the Marine Corps is asking for a new way to do fake shooting.
A recent request for information is asking the commercial industry to bring ideas to the Corps that would help it make simulated shooting more realistic for up to a battalion-size force and improve current systems.
Some versions of those systems have been in operation since Nintendo's Duck Hunt video game was considered high-tech shooting and laser tag advertisements dominated Saturday morning cartoons.
This won't hit every Marine Corps installation but many will have it.
Based on the RFI, the systems would be employed “to provide turnkey instrumented exercises with After Action Review (AAR) at 29 Palms, Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, MCB Hawaii, MCB Okinawa or MCB Quantico within 3 weeks of notice, as well as support additional exercises upon request at Camp Fuji, Japan, Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Center, MCB Yuma, and specified reserve locations.”
And the Marines are not doing this alone.
They will be leveraging the Army's Live Training Engagement Component software. That's a tactical training framework so that simulations can be on the same standards and work jointly with other services and potentially foreign partners.
One of the key cross functional teams that the Army formed last year included simulated training environment work. The goal is to incorporate better simulations for training at all levels, beginning in the design and procurement of future weapons and other equipment systems.
The Corps wants a system that would be able to simulate all weapons and vehicles typically seen in a battalion, which would include at least: M4/M16; M9 or sidearm, the M27 Infantry Automatic Weapon; hand grenades; rocket propelled grenades; Light Anti-Tank Weapon; 60mm mortars; 81mm mortars; Claymore antipersonnel mine; Mk-19 grenade launcher; Russian machine gun; AK-47 variants; M41 TOW; Javelin missile and the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle.
It would distinguish between a hit, wound or miss and record information for after-action reviews.
Marine Corps Times first reported news of this initiative last year following an interview with then-program manager for Training Systems at Marine Corps Systems Command, Col. Walt Yates.
At the time, Yates described some of the shortfalls of using lasers when gauging accuracy and real-world effects.
“A laser is at the speed of light, and the bullet is not,” he said.
Yates previously said that though the current shooting systems are a generational change from old MILES, or multiple integrated laser engagement system, lasers have fundamental flaws for realistic battle scenarios.
For example, laser-based systems shoot line-of-sight, making arcing weapons such as mortars and grenade launchers more difficult to simulate. Lasers can also be deflected by light concealment such as tree leaves and thin walls.
And the number of troops and shooting ranges will change with new systems.
The first generation ITESS accommodated 120 Marines and opposition forces, the second generation expanded to 1,500 with a communication radius of 5 to 8 km. The third seeks to track up to 2,500 Marines, making it capable of battalion on battalion exercises envisioned by the commandant, Yates said in the November interview.
A new simulator must act more like a real bullet, requiring Marines to lead their moving targets, fire rifles on semi, burst and fully automatic modes and ensure the bullet travels in the realistic path, which is not perfectly line of sight, he said.
On the same subject
-
-
August 6, 2019 | International, Land
For defense industry giants, there’s plenty of room in the hypersonic arena
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Defense industry giants see the hypersonic missile market as large enough to be fruitful for all the major players. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are engaged at all levels of offensive and defensive hypersonic missile capabilities as prime contractors on a variety of programs within the military services, but they are also partnering with each other. The U.S. military has dramatically ramped up efforts to build its hypersonic missile capability in a race with Russia and China. During Northrop Grumman's second quarter earnings call for fiscal 2019, President and CEO Kathy Warden described the hypersonic arena as having “plenty of market opportunity for all three of us.” The company recently acquired Orbital ATK, which has expanded Northrop's portfolio in hypersonics and other missile types, from propulsion and guidance systems to complete weapons. Warden said Northrop would continue to be a key supplier to Raytheon and Lockheed, for which it has done in the “more traditional” cruise missile area. And Northrop will continue to partner on hypersonic weapons, she added. Defense firms see dollar signs in hypersonics development, well in advance of potentially lucrative production contracts. Lockheed Martin's Marillyn Hewson reported during the company's second quarter earnings call for FY19 that recent contract awards from the U.S. military amounted to more than $3.5 billion. Hewson highlighted some of Lockheed's contract wins — specifically $928 million for the Air Force's Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon program and $800 million for the Navy's conventional prompt strike hypersonic effort. The Air Force program was awarded in 2018. In April, Lockheed reported that previous awards in hypersonic weapons — including a tactical boost-glide contract and the Air Force's Air-Launched Rapid Response program — had a cumulative value of $2.5 billion. The ARRW program experienced a successful captive-carry flight test on a B-52 Stratofortress bomber, Hewson said. Fast forward to July: Lockheed is now looking at a cumulative value in contract awards of $3.5 billion. The new contracts include selection as prime contractor for the long-range hypersonic weapon system integration effort in support of the Army Hypersonics Project Office. And Lockheed won another contract as part of a team led by Dynetics to build a common hypersonic glide body prototype for the Army. “We anticipate that both of these opportunities will be negotiated in the next few months,” Hewson noted. Most of the hypersonic awards Lockheed received “were not in our plan,” Ken Possenriede, the firm's chief financial officer, said during the earnings call. “Just to give you a little color, we're going to probably book about $600 million of sales in hypersonics this year. And then the rest of that $3.5 billion would go into the next two years,” he added. Raytheon continues to invest in hypersonics as well as counter-hypersonic efforts, the company's chairman and CEO, Thomas Kennedy, said during its second quarter earnings call for FY19. “We're actively working multiple hypersonics and counter-hypersonics programs. For example, we have the [Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept] HAWC system; the tactical boost glide; and we're also participating in the Navy's conventional prompt strike and also the Army's long-range hypersonic weapons program, and also some other classified hypersonic and also counter-hypersonic programs,” Kennedy said. “So it is becoming a big part of our portfolio moving forward.” Kennedy noted the HAWC program successfully completed some testing in a NASA high-temperature tunnel. Raytheon has also signed an agreement with Northrop to develop and produce next-generation scramjet combustors to help power its air-breathing hypersonic weapons. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarded Raytheon a contract in February to work on ground-launched hypersonic boost glide weapons. According to Kennedy, Raytheon believes the market for counter-hypersonic technology is bigger than that of offensive hypersonic weapons. There are also more opportunities to develop hypersonic capabilities within the company should the proposed merger with United Technologies Corp. move forward; Kennedy specifically cited efforts related to high-temperature engine materials and high-end sensors. Raytheon expected revenue to amount to about $300 million this year in hypersonic-related work as well as a growing backlog over the next 12-18 months. Northrop's Warden reaffirmed the company's commitment to uphold the partnerships with Lockheed and Raytheon established through Orbital ATK's business. “We got into agreements to support them on certain programs, and we are very committed to uphold those agreements and continue to support them with our best and brightest people and technology,” she said. Looking forward, Warden said Northrop will consider whether to go after opportunities as the prime or continue partnerships “through the prime of Raytheon, Lockheed and perhaps others that might emerge in this space as well, or both, and offer capability to everyone who is choosing to pursue the marketplace.” Northrop is “certainly not looking to take an aggressive stance in that marketplace, because ... it's a growing market and it's one that we feel is big enough for three parties to adequately play, and we want to make sure that our technology is getting into the hands of the war fighter and that we're giving them the best capabilities in a timely fashion,” she said, “and sometimes it makes sense for us to work with our competitors to do that.” While the hypersonics marketplace is in its nascent stage, companies are projecting weapons will move out of development and into production relatively soon. Prototype launches are expected to begin next year on many of the Defense Department's programs. “Some of these programs actually have scope that is to prepare for production,” Lockheed's Possenriede said. But “that doesn't mean they're going to go into production.” Still, if some of the hypersonic prototypes are deemed successful after first launch, “I think it will be the time for that customer set to sit with us, to see if it makes sense to go into production. And that's probably, say, two years out would be our best guess,” he added. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2019/08/05/for-defense-industry-giants-theres-plenty-of-room-in-the-hypersonic-arena/
-
October 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace
A&D Industry And The Chinese Conundrum: Get In Or Out?
Michael Bruno Western airlines are begging for more government aid, the International Air Transport Association does not expect the industry to see positive cash flow before 2022, and credit agency analysts forecast depressed aerospace and defense business activity for up to another 1.5 years. Meanwhile, data continues to portray China as the lone bright spot in the aviation world. By August, Chinese domestic flights had recovered to about 90% of 2019 levels. “China has been effectively controlling the spread of COVID-19, limiting cases to less than 100 a day. Combined with a large domestic market, the recovery in commercial aviation is expected to outpace the rest of the world,” Jefferies analysts Sheila Kahyaoglu and Greg Konrad noted in late September. “Right now, really, the two areas of traffic that are close to normal are domestic China and the roughly 2,000 all-cargo aircraft out there today,” echoes AeroDynamic Advisory Managing Director Kevin Michaels. Otherwise, “it's a bloodbath, and we're all aware of that,” he told an Aviation Week SpeedNews conference in September. For aerospace and defense (A&D) suppliers, the dichotomy sets up a critical decision: Should suppliers and servicers run toward China—or run away? It is easy to understand why they are debating the question. Long before COVID-19 gutted commercial air traffic and kick-started what is expected to be the greatest makeover of aircraft manufacturing and the maintenance, repair and overhaul industries since the dawn of the jet age, there were already good reasons to debate being in China. Topping the list was the Trump administration's trade war with the world's second-largest economy. Ongoing questions lingered about intellectual property rights and the specter of inadvertently creating future competitors in Avic, Comac and other Chinese companies. Proponents of reshoring industry to the U.S.—or “nearshoring” to Canada or Mexico—are certainly touting potential opportunity. “The logical thing is to fill longer-term and COVID-revealed supply chain gaps,” Reshoring Initiative President Harry Moser told an Aerospace and Defense Forum audience on Oct. 6. Others agree that conditions are ripe for reshoring, not least because automation and advanced technologies that replace humans can offset North American costs. Also, A&D has been deemed a critical part of U.S. infrastructure. And Chinese unit labor costs have risen fivefold in recent decades. This summer, site-selection consultant Duff & Phelps identified A&D as a top candidate for moving to America (see chart). But siting decisions are complex, and supply chain moves are even more so. Not only is commercial aviation looking strongest in China now and in the near future, but it could accelerate a long-expected toppling of the U.S. as the world's leading aviation market, possibly as soon as 2025. Increasingly, Beijing officials talk about relying on domestic supply instead of imports. Indeed, the “Sleeping Giant” could boast a future estimated aviation market value of more than $1 trillion, according to Yi Zhang, general manager of OCO Global China. That catches suppliers' attention. Zhang spoke in June to a well-attended webinar hosted by Washington state economic development officials about aerospace opportunities in China, and that was a month before Boeing revealed it was even thinking about scrapping 787 production in Puget Sound, Washington. Now China's opportunities beckon brighter with no snapback in Western air traffic. Still, in his Sept. 24 report titled “Caveat Venditor,” or “seller beware,” Vertical Research Partners analyst Rob Stallard cautions Western A&D companies against rushing toward China. “We see the Chinese government leveraging its position of relative post-COVID strength in coming years, and no doubt aerospace will see some of the fallout,” Stallard says. “As the biggest show in town, we would expect to see more quid pro quo in China's relationship with what is still very much a Western aerospace industry. Price, supply chain and technology transfer could be on the table, as could politics. “Aviation could conceivably suffer collateral damage as part of a broader trade war,” Stallard writes. “So while investors will probably see good news in a Chinese-led aero recovery, we would be looking for any strings attached.” https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/ad-industry-chinese-conundrum-get-or-out