Russia's MiG Developing Drone Wingman Concept for Fighters

On the same subject

• 

  April 2, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Le dernier contrat militaire marocain suscite la vigilance en Espagne

  Le développement militaire que connaît le Maroc semble inquiéter les milieux espagnols concernés. Le journal El Confidencial lui consacre un long article. Médias24 fait une lecture critique de cette analyse espagnole. “Il n'y a plus de doute: le réarmement du Maroc est important, progressif et, même s'il est encore loin des effectifs de l'armée espagnole, il s'en rapproche de plus en plus. Le dernier achat d'armes du pays voisin confirme cette tendance: 25 nouveaux chasseurs F-16 et la modernisation de 23 autres“. C'est ainsi que commence l'article espagnol. Le ton est vite donné. La tendance générale de l'article consiste à attirer l'attention sur l'armement marocain et sa modernisation, tout en minimisant certains aspects. Par exemple, le Maroc aura 384 chars Abrams et non pas 200 comme indiqué. Le premier lot étant un A1 version SA à la marocaine. On peut considérer que ce premier lot est au même niveau que les derniers chars Leopard E de l'armée espagnole, avec des capacités technologiques, un blindage et des munitions dernier cri. Le deuxième lot Abrams sera constitué des A2. Les changements demandés par les FAR le situent au-dessus de son standard habituel ! Le Maroc surpassera avec ce lot, les capacités des blindés espagnols. Pour ce qui concerne les chars que l'auteur de l'article qualifie d'"obsolètes" en parlant des M60A3, T72 et MBT2000/VT1, il s'agit des chars de soutien qui peuvent faire mal aux blindés et transporteurs de troupes espagnols. Le Maroc dispose de plusieurs unités dites "Bataillons de Soutien Matériels", rodées pour le soutien logistique des troupes et matériels, réglant le problème de la maintenance et des pièces de rechange. Pour ce qui concerne l'aviation : En optant pour les F-16 avec AESA, le Maroc surpasse largement les capacités de l'aviation de chasse espagnole. L'auteur de l'article affirme que les capacités des Eurofighters/Typhoon dépassent celles des F16 avec l'argument que la plateforme des F-16 est ancienne et que les pilotes marocains ne sont pas bien formés ! En réalité, la plateforme de base des F-16 a évolué pour leur donner des capacités aérodynamiques plus agiles, et une signature radar dite RCS plus réduite, la petite taille de l'avion étant toujours en sa faveur. Par ailleurs, les pilotes marocains ont toujours eu une formation de très haut niveau, et sont réputés être de bons chasseurs. Exemple : Lors du dernier exercice Atlas 2018, les chasseurs espagnols ont utilisé leur fleuron, l'Eurofighter ! Ils ont pris une sacré défaite avec un score 5-1 en faveur des F-16 marocains, tout en faisant match nul 3-3 contre les Mirage F1 marocains. Dans les années 80, lors des manœuvres gigantesques organisées par les USA au Maroc, appelées Majestic Eagle, les avions Mirage marocains ont pu dépasser les défenses et la chasse américaine à deux reprises et toucher le porte-avion américain à la surprise totale des officiers américains qui découvraient pour la premier fois la plateforme Mirage. Autre erreur : l'auteur avance que les réservoirs supplémentaires dits CFT qui équipent les F16 des FRA, impactent leur agilité. En réalité, ceci a été démenti preuves à l'appui, par l'ensemble des pays utilisateurs notamment les pays de l'OTAN. Pour tout le reste, l'analyse est correcte. Le Maroc a effectivement par rapport à l'Espagne, un très grand retard en termes de marine de combat. https://www.medias24.com/le-dernier-contrat-militaire-marocain-suscite-la-vigilance-en-espagne-1261.html

• 

  May 7, 2020 | International, Naval

  5 things you should know about the US Navy’s new frigate

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy selected Fincantieri's FREMM design for its next-generation frigate, but as with most new platforms it will be a long time before the first ship hits the fleet. The contract, awarded May 30, is for up to 10 hulls constructed at Fincantieri's Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin. The Navy intends to buy at least 20 frigates. Here's what we know about what the years ahead will hold: 1) The price tag. According to Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts, the first hull will cost $1.281 billion, which includes the design money for both the ship and for the work needed at the shipyard to set up a production line. It also includes all the government-furnished equipment, including things such as Raytheon's AN/SPY-6-derivative radar and Lockheed Martin's Aegis Combat System. Of that $1.281 billion, $795 million will go to the shipyard. The next hulls in the buy should cost significantly less. The Navy is aiming for a price tag of $800 million in 2018 dollars, with the threshold at $950 million. But Geurts thinks he can beat both numbers. An independent cost estimate found the follow-on hulls should cost about $781 million if all 20 are built. “The study shows this ship as selected and the program as designed delivering underneath our objective cost per platform,” Geurts said on a May 30 phone call with reporters. 2) The timeline. Detailed design of the future frigate, known as FFG(X), starts right away, Geurts said, and construction will begin no later than April 2022. The first ship should be delivered in 2026 and should be operational by 2030, with final operational capability declared by 2032, Geurts said. The contract should be wrapped up — all 10 hulls — by 2035. The intention is to buy 20 hulls, though it's unclear whether Marinette will build all 20 or if the Navy will identify a second source. 3) What could go wrong? The Navy feels like it did a lot to get this ship deal right, which could be argued was important given a not-so-hot track record with programs lately. Improving the Navy's performance on lead ships, in the wake of the Ford-class debacle, has been a focus of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. Among the steps the Navy took to retire risk with FFG(X) was to adapt many of the mature systems being designed for the Flight III destroyer program, including the latest version of the Aegis Combat System and a scaled-down version of the AN/SPY-6 radar destined for Flight III. “Some of those efforts are still maturing, such as SPY-6, but from my standpoint I'm very comfortable with how that's proceeding,” said Rear Adm. Casey Moton, program executive officer of unmanned and small combatants. Bringing industry in on the process earlier will also help reduce risk in the lead ship, Moton said. “In general, even before the solicitation went out, the fact that we had industry involved in the conceptual design phase, they were there with us in the requirements; they understood the specifications; we worked with them on cost reduction. Many of the things that tend to trip up lead ships, we took proactive steps to reduce the risk there.” 4) Room to grow. The Navy considered the ability to add new, energy intensive systems on to the ship later in its calculus in selecting FREMM as the FFG(X), according to service officials. During the competition, Fincantieri highlighted that it could fairly easily grow the electrical capacity of the ship, and that all the major computer and engine gear could be swapped out without cutting a hole in the ship, as is often necessary with current classes in the U.S. Navy's inventory. Rick Hunt, a retired Navy three-star admiral who is now a senior Fincantieri executive, told reporters that the company's bid was designed to meet the cost specifications while giving the Navy room to upgrade. “Be flexible in what you do right now, surge to more capacity as soon as we get that [requirement] and be able to grow the ship in lot changes should you need something even greater in the future,” Hunt said. Vice Adm. Jim Kilby, the Navy's top requirements officer, said growth will be important in Navy designs as the service seeks to move away from combating missiles with other missiles. “Understanding how fast the threat is advancing made the service-life allowance so important for us,” Kilby said May 30. “We didn't want [to] define discretely where we are going in the future, so having some margin to include things like directed energy and other systems, that's why it was so important. “We have an extensive laser [science and technology] program in the Navy, we have lasers on some of our ships now. We definitely view it as a requirement for the future as we move into a realm where our launchers are reserved for offensive weapons and our point defense systems are these rechargeable magazines that we can sustain for long periods of time.” 5) Lessons learned. The Navy acquisitions boss feels good about the process that produced the FFG(X) award and thinks it can be a model for other programs. “FFG(X) represents an evolution in the Navy's requirements and acquisition approach, which allowed the acquisition planning, requirements and technical communities along with the shipbuilders to develop requirements for the platform ahead of the release of the detailed design and construction request for proposal," Geurts said. “By integrating the requirements, acquisition planning and design phases, we were able to reduce the span time by nearly six years as compared to traditional platforms. All this was done with an intense focus on cost, acquisition and technical rigor so we got the best value for the war fighter and the taxpayer. It's the best I've seen in the Navy thus far in integrating all the teams together, and it's a model we're building on for future programs.” But it's unclear if a similar approach would work on a clean-sheet, new design the same way it worked for FFG(X), which uses already-developed technologies and a parent design. “Having all the folks in the room early in the process helped move the process along and move it along faster,” said Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer captain who is now a consultant with The Ferrybridge Group. “The question comes when you consider how applicable duplicating such an effort would be if you were trying to do a clean-sheet design that was incorporating revolutionary technologies, untested technologies, perhaps even undeveloped technologies. That's a different story.” The FFG(X) will be a considerable step forward for the Navy in terms of capability, but isn't exactly a revolutionary platform that may require a different process to arrive at a solution, McGrath said. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/05/05/5-things-you-should-know-about-the-us-navys-new-frigate/

• 

  June 19, 2019 | International, C4ISR, Other Defence

  Can AI help limited information have endless potential?

  By: Kelsey D. Atherton Humans are remarkably good at choosing to act on limited information. Computers, less so. A new DARPA program wants to train artificial intelligence to process and evaluate information like humans do, and produce actionable results on far smaller datasets than presently done. It's a program of such important DARPA's giving it VIP status, or a least VIP as an acronym: Virtual Intelligence Processing. “Successful integration of next-generation AI into DoD applications must be able to deal with incomplete, sparse and noisy data, as well as unexpected circumstances that might arise while solving real world problems,” reads a solicitation posted June 14. “Thus, there is need for new mathematical models for computing leading to AI algorithms that are efficient and robust, can learn new concepts with very few examples, and can guide the future development of novel hardware to support them.” To create these mathematical models, DARPA wants partners to look inward, creating AI inspired by the robust and massive parallelism seen in the human neocortex. If it is the architecture of the brain that makes humans so especially skilled at processing information quickly, then it is an architecture worth studying. “In order to reverse engineer the human brain,” the solicitation continues, calmly, “we need to apply new mathematical models for computing that are complete and transparent and can inform next-generation processors that are better suited for third-wave AI.” It is DARPA's nature to inject funding into problem areas it sees as both yielding future results and not presently served by the market, and this is not different. The solicitation explicitly asks for mathematical models that have not already been the focus of AI development. It's also looking for models that can inform the development of future hardware, rather than programs that can run on existing machines. DARPA is interested in how the hardware works in simulation, but wants partners to hold off on actually making the hardware for the model. So, the plan goes: create a mathematical model, inspired by brains, to process information on a small and limited data set, and then design it for hardware that doesn't exist yet. Easy as that sounds, the solicitation also asks proposers to talk about the limitations of the algorithms when applied to military tasks, and specifically limitations related to accuracy, data, computing power and robustness. Working from limited information is an expected future of military machines going forward. Between electronic warfare, denied environments and the very nature of battlefield events as rare and hard to record moments, doing more with on-board processing of limited data should enable greater autonomy. Even in the rare case where a weapon system transmits data back for algorithm refinement, that data set will be orders of magnitude smaller than the big data sets used to train most commercial machine learning tools. Should a proposer's idea be accepted and they follow through both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project, the total award is set at $1 million. A tidy sum, for anyone who can figure out the math to make a future computer run on sparse information as effectively as a human brain. https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2019/06/18/can-brain-inspired-ai-run-on-lean-data/