Saab Receives Finnish Squadron 2020 Order

On the same subject

• 

  September 13, 2021 | International, Land

  Israeli, British firms to deliver unmanned vehicles for UK experimental program

  The British government's Future Capability Group wants to identify future military requirements of unmanned ground vehicles through a series of trials.

• 

  October 15, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Army-developed multimission launcher ‘off the table’

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army spent years internally developing its own multimission launcher for the Indirect Fires Protection Capability program — designed to counter threats like rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft systems. But that grand plan is now officially off the table. The service has purchased two Rafael-made Iron Dome systems as an interim solution to get after the cruise missile defense capability gap, but it's taken a step back to rethink its enduring IFPC program strategy. While much is up in the air, it's certain that the launcher that will ultimately be part of the IFPC program won't be the MML. “It'll be something different that we will develop,” Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of the Army's air-and-missile defense modernization, told Defense News at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference. As of 2016, the Army had spent $119 million to build MML prototypes, which included owning the technical data rights. The cost of developing the system outside of the Army would have been about three times as much according to the service at the time. Over the course of its development, the launcher was able to defeat a cruise missile target and an unmanned aircraft system using an AIM-9X missile at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and fired the Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) and Tamir missiles as well. The U.S. Army had awarded three $2.6 million contracts in the summer of 2018 for the first phase of a program to find a second interceptor — the Expanded Mission Area Missile (EMAM) — for the MML. Also already selected was the first interceptor for the launcher, the Sidewinder. Lockheed Martin's MHTK missile and two missiles from Raytheon were chosen to be qualified for the launcher: Sky Hunter, the U.S. version of the Iron Dome missile Tamir; and the Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative missile. The effort to qualify the MHTK has been paused, Scott Arnold, Lockheed Martin's vice president and deputy of integrated air-and-missile defense with the company's Missiles and Fire Control business, said at AUSA. The company did not have an intercept test, but was able to move the MHTK missile through some testing prior to the Army's decision to pause the program. The Army may take technologies developed as part of the MML effort and spiral them into a future launcher, “but there were a lot of things, with all the right reasons, that launcher turned out the way it did,” Gibson said. An assessment of the launcher determined it was not sufficient for an enduring capability, he added. “All the variables of when you define a new piece of hardware matter and, for air defense, it really comes down to angles you launch things at, whether it's vertical or whether it's horizontal, and the applicability of how many different interceptors potentially you can put in,” Gibson said. “Those are all lessons learned from MML and it matters on the threat set.” The one-star added that he is confident the Army is capable of developing something appropriate on the right timeline when it comes to a launcher for the enduring IFPC plan. And while the service doesn't want to buy beyond the two batteries of Iron Dome already purchased, the Army is considering the feasibility of taking its launcher and missiles for the future IFPC program. The Army has until the end of 2023 to field an initial enduring capability or, by law, will have to buy more interim Iron Dome systems. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2019/10/15/army-developed-multimission-launcher-off-the-table

• 

  October 9, 2018 | International, Land

  Milley: We’re going to cut instructor-trainee ratios at Army basic training in half

  By: Meghann Myers So far, 2018 has seen an overhaul of basic combat training and a pilot programto extend infantry one-station unit training from 14 to 22 weeks. Next stop: Reducing the number of trainees assigned to each drill sergeant. Earlier this year, the Army sent drill sergeants back to advanced individual training, bringing uniformity to the whole of initial entry training for new soldiers who move onto a second training program following basic. But the ratio of trainers to trainees is still “way too high,” Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley told Army Times on Monday at the AUSA annual meeting in Washington, D.C. “And that's because we intentionally, over the last 17 years, we trimmed our institutional force ... in order to feed the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and make sure that those deploying units had enough people,” he said. So that left the base with 20 trainees for every one drill sergeant at basic combat training, and 40-to-1 at AIT. “We want to essentially cut those ratios in half,” Milley said, while adding a platoon sergeant and officer platoon leader to each of those units. The Army is counting on a steady rise in end strength to 500,000 active component soldiers in the next four years. Those new additions are slated first to fill spots in operational units, but the training base is also hurting for more of the unprecedented number of noncommissioned officers who have been re-enlisting. Decreasing the ratio of drill sergeants to trainees comes at a time when basic training programs are extending, requiring yet more instructors. The Army wants to improve basic combat training “not just in the length, but in the quality and attention paid to each trainee,” Milley said. Infantry OSUT completed a pilot program to extend from 14 to 22 weeks this summer, Army Secretary Mark Esper told Army Times, and that plan will extend in the next year to armor, combat engineers and others. “If we step back and ask ourselves, why? Why extend it?” Esper said. “I think it's lessons learned from the field, the operational Army that says, ‘Look, we're getting solders who could use more time to develop their physical fitness.' Maybe spend more time talking about the military traditions and our history, that [they] would come to the service with a greater sense of discipline.” Some more tactical and technical expertise wouldn't hurt, he added. “We thought adding two months would be what it takes,” for OSUT, Esper said, making it the “Longest and most challenging infantry basic training the world. Depending on what we learn ... we would seek to apply those lessons to other MOSs.” https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/08/milley-were-going-to-cut-instructor-trainee-ratios-at-army-basic-training-in-half