Seeking to reposition, LMI plans to sells for-profit subsidiary

On the same subject

• 

  June 10, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Light as a form of defence? Laser brings down unwanted drones

  June 8, 2020 - Almost 300,000 km per second. That's the speed of light, and also the speed of laser light. Faster than any projectile. A laser is also accurate and always hits its target. This means it should be possible to bring down unwanted drones quickly and cheaply. In a laboratory set-up for weapon systems, TNO is already seeing promising test results with a high-energy laser. From an innocent toy to an offensive weapon: that's what happens when malicious people attach explosives to drones. The fact that improvised explosive devices like this can inflict significant damage was confirmed yet again last September, during the attacks on Saudi Arabian oil installations. GATWICK AIRPORT PLAGUED BY DRONES Even without explosives, drones can still cause major problems. In 2018, at Braitains Gatwick airport, a few simple and inexpensive drones proved capable of causing hours of disruption to air traffic. “The Netherlands has its own counter-drone research programme. The problem is being taken very seriously.” COUNTER-DRONE RESEARCH PROGRAMME Several countries across the world, including the Netherlands, are developing solutions for the problem of drones. Last year the Netherlands launched its own counter-drone research programme, spearheaded by the Ministry of Defence, the National Police and the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV). The problem is being taken very seriously and is therefore high on the agenda. UTMOST CARE “The first challenge is to quickly detect and identify an incoming drone”, says Patrick Keyzer, who heads up TNO's research programme. “If a drone appears to represent a genuine threat, we have to disarm it as quickly as possible. Of course, it must be done with the utmost care and we need to ensure that we inflict as little unintentional damage as possible.” “TNO is testing a high-energy laser capable of burning a hole in thick steel plate in just a few seconds” ENOUGH FIREPOWER Using a laser is one of the possibilities for disabling drones. “It's a highly effective method”, confirms Federica Valente, Business Developer for TNO's high-energy laser research. In a heavily-secured bunker, her colleagues are testing a high-energy laser capable of burning a hole in thick steel plate in a matter of seconds. “That's obviously more than enough firepower to bring down drones.” LESS THAN A EURO A SHOT “This kind of laser is also extremely accurate and cost-effective”, she continues. “To fire it, you only have to pay for the energy: less than a euro each time. A laser is also very flexible, enabling you to monitor the drone's every movement at relatively low cost.” “In addition to using a laser, we can also take control of the drones or use jammers” TOOLBOX “A laser weapon certainly has numerous advantages”, agrees Keyzer. “But we need to carefully assess the setting and situation in which a drone appears. It's important to have several options at our disposal for disabling drones responsibly. This is why we're currently developing and researching several different solutions. In addition to using a laser, we can also take control of the drones or use jammers. So, it's not a case of ‘one solution fits all'. Nevertheless, the emergence of a laser weapon will help enormously in combating the threat of drones.” The laser weapon is just one of the weapon systems that TNO is researching. The aim of these innovations is to protect those who protect us. Read more about it on the ‘Weapon Systems' page. View source version on TNO: https://www.tno.nl/en/tno-insights/articles/light-as-a-form-of-defence-laser-brings-down-unwanted-drones/

• 

  May 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Will defense budgets remain ‘sticky’ after the COVID-19 pandemic?

  By: Eric Lofgren Congress' unprecedented fiscal response to COVID-19 has many in the defense community wondering whether belt tightening will hit the Pentagon. On May 19, the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote a letter arguing for substantial defense budget cuts to support additional spending on the pandemic. Nonprofit progressive supporters have been asking to cut a much larger $350 billion each year from the Pentagon in their “Moral Budget” proposal. What the progressives perhaps do not fully appreciate is the “stickiness” of defense budgets. In economics, stickiness refers to rigidity in the movement of wages and prices despite broader economic shifts pushing for new equilibrium. The phenomenon is apparent in defense budgets as well. Most expectations are that the fiscal 2021 budget will remain over $700 billion. Consider an analogy: the 2008 financial crisis. Lehman Brothers collapsed just a couple weeks before fiscal year 2009 started, leaving that $666 billion defense budget largely beyond recall. The following years' budgets were $691 billion, $687 billion, $646 billion and then finally in FY13 a more precipitous 10 percent fall to $578 billion. It took four years for the Pentagon to really feel the squeeze of the financial downturn. The uninitiated may believe COVID-19 happened with enough of lead time to affect the FY21 budget. Congress received the president's budget in February 2020 and has until the start of October to make targeted cuts without encountering another continuing resolution. The defense budget, however, represents the culmination of a multiyear process balancing thousands of stakeholder interests. It reflects a vast amount of information processed at every level of the military enterprise. The Pentagon's work on the FY21 budget request started nearly two years ahead of time and includes a register of funding estimates out to FY25. Moreover, defense programs are devised and approved based on life-cycle cost and schedule estimates. Cuts to a thorough plan may flip the analysis of alternatives on its head, recommending pivots to new systems or architectures and upsetting contract performance. Not only are current budgets shaped by many years of planning, but they get detailed to an almost microscopic level. For example, the Army's FY21 research, development, test and evaluation request totaled $12.8 billion, less than 2 percent of the overall Pentagon request. Yet the appropriation identifies 267 program elements decomposing into a staggering 2,883 budget program activity codes averaging less than $10 million each. Congressional staff is too small to understand the implications of many cost, schedule and technical trade-offs. To gather information on impacts, the Pentagon is thrown into a frenzy of fire drills. More draconian measures, like the FY13 sequestration, leading to indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts can sidestep hard questions but comes at a significant cost to efficiency. Targeted cuts at a strategic level, such as to the nuclear recapitalization programs and other big-ticket items, can expect stiff resistance. First, there is real concern about great power competition and the damage that may be wrought by acting on short-term impulses. Second, targeted programs and their contractors will immediately report the estimated number of job losses by district. Before measures can get passed, a coalition of congressional members negatively impacted may oppose the cuts. Resistance is intensified considering the proximity to Election Day. Budget stickiness is built into the political process. The FY22 budget is perhaps the first Pentagon budget that can start inching downward. More than likely, severe cuts aren't in the offing until FY23 or FY24 at the very earliest. That gives time for policymakers to reflect on the scale of the rebalancing between defense and other priorities. In some important ways, congressional control of the Pentagon through many thousands of budget line items restricts its own flexibility. For example, continuing resolutions lock in program funding to the previous year's level until political disagreements can be resolved. The military cannot stick to its own plans, much less start new things. If budget lines were detailed at a higher level, such as by major organization or capability area, then the Pentagon could make more trade-offs while Congress debates. Similarly, if the Pentagon had more budget flexibility, then Congress could more easily cut top lines and allow Pentagon leaders to figure out how to maximize with the constraint during the year of execution. Congress could gain the option to defer the hard questions that can make cuts politically difficult. The Space Force recently released a proposal for consolidating budget line items into higher-level capability areas. It reflects the idea that portfolio-centric management is an efficient method of handling rapid changes in technologies, requirements or financial guidance resulting from economic shocks. Until such reforms are pursued, expect defense budgets to remain sticky. Eric Lofgren is a research fellow at the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. He manages a blog and podcast on weapon systems acquisition. He previously served as a senior analyst at Technomics Inc., supporting the U.S. Defense Department's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/26/will-defense-budgets-remain-sticky-after-the-covid-19-pandemic/

• 

  February 18, 2022 | International, Aerospace

  Air Force Research Lab building momentum on cislunar projects

  The increased focus on cislunar projects reflects a growing recognition of a near-term need for deep-space domain awareness.