Sikorsky Gets $542M Navy Contract to Build 6 New Presidential Helicopters

On the same subject

• 

  June 18, 2019 | International, C4ISR, Other Defence

  What’s the best way for the Army to demonstrate force via electronic warfare?

  By: Mark Pomerleau When the Russian military attacked Ukraine, it prevented units from communicating with each other by turning to powerful electronic jamming tools. The U.S. Army, however, is not interested in the same raw demonstration of force. Instead, U.S. officials are following a philosophy that relies on “surgical” attacks. This could include creating an image on enemy's radar, projecting an aircraft at one location when enemies think it is at another, or impairing the command and control links of adversaries' unmanned aerial systems. “When the Russians emit like that, they're letting the entire world know where they are,” Col. Mark Dotson, the Army's capabilities manager for electronic warfare said on a media call with two reporters June 14. “What we're looking at in the future ... [is] surgical electronic attack, electronic intrusion or 21st century electron attack. We're looking for much more discrete ways of conducting electronic attack. Using low power to affect the signal and to affect it in such a way that it may not even be detectable that you're interfering with what they're doing.” Dotson said instead of sheer power, future capabilities should focus on the end result, such as whether it's hurting an enemy's ability to communicate or to use radar. “There's a variety of different approaches that can be taken to create the effect necessary without having to do what we refer to as traditional jamming, which is just increasing the signal to noise ratio,” Dave May, senior cyber intelligence advisor at the Cyber Center of Excellence, said. Finding materiel solutions The officials spoke at the conclusion of Cyber Quest, a week-long technology experimentation that took place at Fort Gordon. Cyber Quest is a prototyping event that allows the Army to test technologies and concepts from industry to help solve future problems. This year, Army leaders focused on several areas. They include: Improving the requirements for the Terrestrial Layer System, an integrated electronic warfare and signals intelligence system that will provide a much-needed jamming capability to formations; Identifying candidates for rapid acquisition, and Conducting risk reduction against current programs and identifying candidates for electronic warfare capabilities to outfit the Intelligence, Information, Cyber, Electronic Warfare and Space detachment or I2CEWS, a battalion-sized unit described as the “brain” of the Army's multidomain task force. “Cyber Quest helps ... in that we are able to take these difficult challenges to industry, walk them through what we're trying to accomplish and let industry come back to us with novel approaches,” May said. “This pre-prototyping philosophy allows us to work through concepts, [tactics, techniques and procedures], and actually start the concept for doctrine.” At Cyber Quest, Army officials focused on the overall TLS system and two subsets: the Tactical Electronic Warfare System (TEWS) and the Tactical Signals Intelligence Vehicle. Both are integrated platforms the Army is using to experiment with different technologies that would allow for sensing, signals intelligence, electronic warfare and RF-enabled cyberattacks. May said these subsystems are in the pre-prototype phase. Army leaders also tested a spectrum analyzer tool that will notify commanders of the health of their systems within the electromagnetic spectrum. Such a tool would provide details on the footprint of blue force electromagnetic spectrum. The Army's current spectrum management program of record, Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool, only offers details on red force's in the spectrum relying on sensors in the field. By contrast, the spectrum analyzer tool the Army looked at during Cyber Quest is a handheld system that doesn't need to rely on the sensors that belong to tactical operational tools. There's been a focus across all the services in recent years to better understand their own electromagnetic spectrum as a way to prevent themselves from being detected and jammed or detected and killed. The details for when these capabilities would reach soldiers, however, is still in flux. If the Army has approved a requirement, a new product can be fielded to certain units under what the Army refers to as a buy, try, decide model. Capabilities can be fielded faster if they are funneled through the Rapid Equipping Force, though, they wouldn't become a program of record, but could be fielded to operational units that need it between 90 days and six months. If a capability goes through the Rapid Capabilities Office, it could take six to 18 months to get to units, Dotson said. May said the goal for TLS is to deliver a “validated requirement” to the program manager by third quarter of fiscal year 2020. That puts fielding in the 2022 or 2023 timeframe. Officials were a bit more circumspect on the Multi-Functional Electronic Warfare Air Large program, a first of its kind brigade-organic aerial electronic attack pod that will be mounted on unmanned systems. Lockheed Martin was awarded was awarded two sequential 18-month contracts valued at $18 million in January. Officials said it should be flying within the next 12 months but added that they want to see the product that ends up flying before forecasting a timeline for when it would reach units. https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2019/06/17/whats-the-best-way-for-the-army-to-demonstrate-force-via-electronic-warfare/

• 

  September 3, 2024 | International, Aerospace

  Safran buys AI firm Preligens for 220 million euros

• 

  December 18, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  The military could save hundreds of billions — by capping pay, scrapping aircraft, slashing benefits, experts say

  By: Leo Shane III WASHINGTON — Analysts from the Congressional Budget Office say the government could trim hundreds of billions from the federal deficit by enacting a host of already discussed military and veterans program reforms. The problem is that those reforms include some of the most controversial and politically unpopular policies of the last few years, things like limiting military pay raises, ending a host of military equipment purchases, and cutting back on veterans benefits. The document released last week — CBO's annual “options for reducing the deficit” report — lists more than 120 ideas to reduce federal spending or boost federal revenues over the next 10 years. Authors said the goal is to “reflect a range of possibilities” of moves that lawmakers could make in dealing with government debt and escalating federal programming costs. Twenty of the proposals would affect the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, including a plan to cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent ($591 billion in reduced budget authority over the next decade). That dramatic cut would “require DOD to decrease the size of its forces, slow the rate at which it modernizes weapon systems, or do both,” which in turn would prompt a host of complaints from military leaders and defense lawmakers. Still, the size of the savings involved show why the ideas continue to attract debate on Capitol Hill each year, even with the significant disruptions they may bring. Here is a look at some of the other potential VA and Pentagon moves: Limit pay raises for troops ($18 billion in savings over 10 years) The CBO idea would give troops an annual raise of 0.5 percent less than the expected growth in civilian salaries. Service members would still see annual raises, but opponents of the idea argue that those increases wouldn't keep up with the cost of living for military families. President Barack Obama's Pentagon capped the military raises at this level for three years during his presidency, leading to criticism from advocates that he had created a new gap in military and civilian wages. President Donald Trump suggested a 0.3 percent reduction in the expected raise formula in his first budget, but saw the proposal rejected by Congress. Narrow eligibility for VA disability benefits ($33 billion over 10 years) The CBO plan would drop a host of conditions not directly related to military service — illnesses like arteriosclerotic heart disease, hemorrhoids and multiple sclerosis — from the list of claims eligible for disability benefits. More than 750,000 veterans' checks would be affected by the move. Any such trims in benefits have prompted harsh attacks from veterans groups, who have accused supporters of breaking faith with men and women who were promised lifelong assistance for their military service. Cancel new F-35 purchases ($16 billion over 10 years), retire the F-22 fleet ($30 billion over 10 years) and delay development of the B-21 bomber until after 2028 ($45 billion over 10 years) All three ideas would require Air Force officials to continue using aging aircraft, a concern for Pentagon planners who have seen a spike in aviation accidents in recent years. The CBO report acknowledged that a disadvantage of the idea would be making the military “less flexible against advanced enemy air defense systems” but said the current mix of aircraft types already in use by the services would mitigate some of those concerns. Stop building Ford-class aircraft carriers ($18 billion over 10 years) Under this option, the Navy would stop building new aircraft carriers after the USS Enterprise, scheduled to be completed in 2027. A carrier set for the start of construction in 2023 would be scrapped. The CBO report argues that even with the move, the Navy would still have 11 active carriers until 2036 given its current fleet size. However, defense lawmakers have long argued against any delays in ship building schedules, given the long wait for construction and fielding of new vessels. End VA's Individual Unemployability program for retirement-age veterans ($48 billion over 10 years) Trump also suggested this idea in his first VA budget, only to have lawmakers and veterans groups soundly reject it. The IU program provides extra benefits to veterans unable to work because of disabilities, even if they don't have a 100 percent disabled rating. Supporters have argued that money should stop once Social Security payouts begin. Opponents of the idea could leave as many as 235,000 veterans in dire financial need. Reduce military housing allowances to 80 percent of rent costs ($15 billion over 10 years) Under this plan, BAH payments wouldn't change for troops until they move, but it would slowly increase their out-of-pocket costs for housing. The change would also create savings for the VA, since post-9/11 GI Bill housing stipends are tied to the military housing formula. Similar BAH reform proposals on Capitol Hill have met fierce opposition in recent years. Advocates argue that since military members have little say in their next duty assignment, they shouldn't have to shoulder the costs of unexpected moves and expensive housing costs. Replace thousands of troops with civilian workers ($17 billion over 10 years) The CBO idea calls for reducing military end strength by 80,000 over four years and replacing them with 64,000 civilian employees. The work would not be directly related to warfighting, and the health care and ancillary costs of non-military workers would create significant savings compared to service members' benefits. But Congress has worked to increase the military's end strength in recent years, saying it brings more readiness and flexibility to the overall force. An end-strength cut of that size would represent a major political backtrack for many elected officials. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/12/17/analysts-find-hundreds-of-billions-in-military-savings-by-capping-military-pay-scrapping-aircraft-slashing-veterans-benefits