June 12, 2018 | International, Land
PARIS — Rafael is rapidly driving toward a demonstration of a lighter version of its Trophy active protection system, or APS, on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle this summer as the U.S. Army continues to assess APS systems on its combat vehicles, according to Rafael's head of its land maneuver systems directorate.
The Israeli company has already been chosen to field Trophy on four brigade sets of Abrams tanks, and the U.S. Army continues to analyze two other systems on Bradley and on the Stryker combat vehicle. The Army is qualifying Israeli company IMI System's Iron Fist on Bradley and the Virginia-based Artis' Iron Curtain for Stryker.
The characterization efforts for both Bradley and Stryker systems are delayed by roughly six to eight months depending on the system.
Should one or both of them have insufficient performance or maturity, the Army could choose to adapt another system under evaluation to that platform; or the service could assess another nondevelopmental APS system to fit that same role; or furthermore, it could make a decision to move the system from engineering development activity under a science and technology development effort as part of the Vehicle Protection Systems program of record, according to Army spokeswoman Ashley Givens.
There's also fiscal 2018 funding that will be used to evaluate a fourth nondevelopmental APS system via an installation and characterization activity to be identified after a preliminary evaluation phase that will occur late this year, applying lessons learned from efforts to date, Givens added.
So Rafael sees a lighter version of Trophy as a promising candidate for other U.S. combat vehicles, which has advantages such as a large amount commonality with Trophy on Abrams, Rafael's Michael L. told Defense News in a June 11 interview at the French defense conference Eurosatory. Michael's last name has been withheld for security reasons.
And the timing seems right, according Michael, as the Army will move toward decisions on APS systems for its combat vehicles at some time this year.
Rafael has been conducting extensive testing of its lighter and smaller Trophy system, and the company is inviting the U.S. military to attend a major test event in August in Israel to witness the capability on a Bradley, which is the combat vehicle considered the most difficult on which to integrate a system because of the current variant's power limitations.
The company would also be capable of integrating the system onto a Stryker, but it has decided — along with its U.S. partner DRS — to focus on Bradley for the time being, Michael said.
While the current Trophy system would be too heavy, coming in at 1.8 tons as a full system, the lighter version will weigh just shy of half that, while still retaining “the same method of operations, the same logic, the same interface,” Michael said.
Rafael sees the solution not as a simple one, but a high-end one, which it believes would be needed on a platform like Bradley.
Israel and other countries are also calling for a lighter APS system that would work on infantry fighting vehicles, and so Rafael sees “a large business opportunity,” according to Michael.
“In August we are going to surprise a lot of people who weren't sure,” Michael said, “because when you say shrinking, it's not just making it smaller. You need to make sure that nothing was lost in the process ... we already know that nothing has been lost, but we are testing it to make sure that everything is in order, and I think we have a great solution.”
Rafael is also developing and testing a 30mm weapon station outfitted with Trophy as an all-in-one system, according to Michael.
The turret can be purchased with or without the Trophy system. One customer ― not Israel or the U.S. ― is buying more than a hundred 30mm weapons stations. The company will complete development of the turret in September and will then begin production for the country in January 2019, Michael said.
While the country has yet to commit to adding Trophy as part of a single system, it wanted to prove the system with Trophy.
Rafael is eyeing what happens with the ongoing assessment by the U.S. Army to upgun its Strykers with a 30mm cannon. The assessment of the current configuration is expected to wrap up in the summer.
Michael said the company has spoke with the Stryker program office in the U.S. to understand what the soldier wants from a 30mm cannon with the intention to fine-tune an offering should the Army decide to assess other 30mm options in order to outfit the rest of its Stryker fleet.
And to sweeten the deal, the 30mm cannon would come with an APS system already integrated into the turret, according to Michael.
October 1, 2023 | International, Aerospace
Consistent with DND/CAF directives, I have made the decision to permanently remove Colonel Leif Dahl from his position as 8 Wing Commander effective 28 September 2023.
October 5, 2018 | International, Land
By David Vergun, Army News Service FORT BELVOIR, Va. -- The Army is looking for an improved ghillie suit to replace the flame-resistant, camouflage suit now worn by snipers to keep them from being seen by the enemy. The current ghillie suits are bulky, somewhat uncomfortable and hot in warm weather, said Debbie Williams, a systems acquisition expert with Program Executive Office Soldier, Product Manager Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment. The current suit is known as the Flame Resistant Ghillie System, or FRGS. The replacement the Army is looking for will be called the Improved Ghillie System, or IGS, Williams said. She added that although the term "flame resistant" is not in the new name, the IGS will still have flame-resistant properties. Soldiers will receive most of their protection from the base layer worn under the IGS, such as the Flame Resistant Combat Uniform, or FR ACU. The IGS will be a modular system, worn over the field uniform, she said. It will be modular in that it can be taken apart, with pieces added or subtracted as needed, such as sleeves, leggings, veil, cape and so on. Another change is that the IGS will not come with the accessory kit, like the one supplied with the FRGS, Williams said. It was found that Soldiers were not using a majority of the items in their accessory kit or preferred a different material. Williams said the cost of the IGS will be lower than the current $1,300 FRGS. Mary Armacost, a textile technologist with Product Manager Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment, said the IGS will be made of lighter, more breathable material than the FRGS. Also, the material for the skeins that accompany the IGS will be stiffer than that of the FRGS, thereby making the IGS more effective at camouflaging the Soldier. A request for proposal for the IGS went out Aug. 28 and closed Sept. 24, she said. Vendors must each provide three samples. About 3,500 suits are expected to be produced under the contract for approximately 3,300 snipers in all three Army components, as well as Soldiers in U.S. Special Operations Command, Williams said. After the samples are obtained, lab and field testing will begin at various locations in November, she said. For example, the Army's Night Vision Laboratory will do full-spectrum testing. It will also use night vision goggles to see how well the suits remain hidden in darkened conditions. Daytime testing for visual camouflage effectiveness will take place as well, with sniper-qualified Soldiers at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Williams said. Additionally, acoustic testing will be done by the Army Research Laboratory to determine how much noise the IGS produces in field conditions. ARL will also test the effectiveness of the fabric regarding tear resistance and fire retardant effectiveness, she added. Following all of this, a limited user evaluation should commence next spring using instructors from the Sniper School at Fort Benning, Georgia. https://www.army.mil/article/211933
February 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The words “classified program” conjure up images of experimental planes, highly advanced super weapons and unidentified flying objects operating under cloak and dagger at Area 51. But as the U.S. Air Force gears up to defend its fiscal 2021 budget on Capitol Hill, lifting the veil of secrecy on some of these programs will be key to getting lawmakers on board with controversial retirements of legacy aircraft, defense analysts said. In its FY21 budget proposal, the Air Force asked to cut 17 B-1 bombers, 44 A-10 jet aircraft, 24 Global Hawk Block 2 and 3 surveillance drones, as well as 13 KC-135 and 16 KC-10 tankers. It is also cutting the number of contractor-flown MQ-9 Reaper combat air patrols, and it will replace 24 C-130H airlifters with 19 C-130Js coming online. Those reductions net $21 billion in savings over the next five years, with about 40 percent of that spent on classified programs buried in the black budget, creating the initial appearance of capabilities disappearing without any kind of a replacement and no obvious boost to research and development funds. That could create a challenge for the Air Force as it tries to get members of Congress and their staff on board, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein acknowledged during an exclusive interview on Feb. 18 with Defense News. “Most of what we're giving up is unclassified. On the minus column you're going to see things that are real, that are flying right now that are all legacy, real legacy capability. It's a real risk to combatant commanders today. What we're buying — not all but a lot of it — is in the classified realm,” Goldfein said. “As we go forward with Congress, I think our biggest challenge, quite frankly, is we were able to talk up to the secret level and above inside the Department of Defense in most of our conversations. That's harder to do with Congress,” he added. The Air Force is trying to combat that by “doubling down” on office calls with lawmakers and congressional staff to discuss the classified investments. Goldfein said the service has done “well over 20” meetings with members of the congressional defense committees and is on track to brief every lawmaker willing to sit down for a classified briefing before public budget hearings start next month. But Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense budget expert at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that such briefings are time-consuming and may not be of interest to most lawmakers. "The members that are going to take the time to go to a [secure room] and get read in and figure out what's what — there are even some members of the armed services [that won't do that]. It's pretty limited who is going to have that kind of time,” she said. It will be important for the Air Force to publicly justify — at unclassified hearings and other venues — what its classified investments are going to enable, said Todd Harrison, a budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “How does it contribute to implementation of the [National Defense Strategy]? How does it address vulnerabilities in the force? How does it create strategic challenges for our adversaries? If they can talk about that and then [be] more explicit with Congress about how the money is being used, I think that could help mitigate some of this,” Harrison said. “If you can't talk about the new investment, the positive aspect for 40 percent of the cases, I think the Air Force is effectively going into this fight with one arm tied behind its back.” While the large investment in classified programs is a challenge, it is not insurmountable, said David Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and a retired Air Force lieutenant general. “Because a good chunk is classified, that's a good thing. These are truly strategic advantages that we're investing in, and they're not items that you'd want out there in the public space,” he said. Goldfein is confident he will be able to convey to Congress the importance of retiring key aircraft at this point in time. “At least we can lay out the why,” he said. “It's going to be hard. Asking Congress to retire legacy aircraft is always hard. But I think we have a really positive story to tell, with the analysis behind it.” Across the board — whether the Air Force has to defend cuts to the B-1, A-10, Global Hawk or tanker fleet — the argument comes down to fleet management, he said. “We're putting on the table 17 B-1s, at least to this point,” Goldfein said. “Many of those 17 B-1s are on the ramp, but they were not flying. Then you do your business case on what it would take to actually get them back to a high enough readiness rate, and the business case actually doesn't justify it. “You'll see the same methodology we used for each of those weapons systems. How do you retire the oldest of each, refunnel that money into the remaining fleet so you can keep that fleet flying for longer?” But any skeptics in Congress will want to see hard data proving there are benefits to retiring some of these aircraft, or a plan to drive down risk, Harrison said. For instance, the Air Force is retiring its oldest, least capable B-1 bombers, but it will keep all associated maintainers and infrastructure, which cuts down on the savings. To make a case to Congress, the Air Force must make a strong argument on why that reduction could improve mission-capable rates, and the service must provide the statistics, he said. Regarding the KC-10 and KC-135 tanker reductions, Harrison said the Air Force must describe exactly what it will do to ameliorate a demand for aerial refueling that already exceeds what the service can provide. “What is the Air Force going to do over the next few years to mitigate the lack of tanker support? Is the Air Force going to go forward with some of the plans they've previously had to do contracted tanking as an interim solution like the Navy has been doing?” he wondered. And to justify the Global Hawk fleet, Harrison said, the Air Force may be called to defend why it is getting rid of those highly utilized assets instead of the aging inventory of U-2 spy planes. The biggest arguments in favor of keeping legacy aircraft will likely come from lawmakers in districts affected by retirements of legacy aircraft. It will be up to the Air Force to explain to those members what capabilities will come on board to replace it, or why these divestments need to take place even if there is no immediate replacement, Deptula said. “We'll see what happens,” he said. “I think in some districts you'll see understanding and support. If you look at the bomber issue ... with the promise of modernized B-21s that are coming on board, I think that there are some congressional districts and members who will go: ‘Yeah, OK, we understand that logic.' ” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2020/02/24/convincing-congress-secretive-programs-could-prove-harmful-to-air-force-funding-plans/