March 11, 2022 | International, Naval
Naval Group : des sous-marins et un porte-avions pour l'Egypte ?
Le Caire a exprimé un intérêt auprès de Paris et de Naval Group pour acquérir...
May 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval
The US Navy’s unmanned dream: A common control system
By: David B. Larter
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The U.S. Navy's growing and increasingly diverse portfolio of unmanned systems is creating a jumble of control systems, creating problems for a force that hopes robot ships, aircraft and submarines will help it regain a significant advantage over rivals China and Russia.
One significant issue is having to train sailors on a number of different systems, which can prove time-consuming, inefficient and expensive.
“From a manned-machine teaming and sailor-integration perspective, we need a portfolio of systems to do a wide variety of things,” said Capt. Pete Small, the head of unmanned maritime systems at Naval Sea Systems Command. “We can't bring a different interface for each platform to our sailors — from a training perspective but also from an integration perspective.
“We might have a destroyer that needs to operate an [unmanned surface vessel] and an [unmanned underwater vehicle] and they all need to be linked back to a shore command center. So we've got to have common communications protocols to make that all happen, and we want to reduce the burden on sailors to go do that.”
That's driving the Navy toward a goal of having one control system to run all the unmanned platforms in the service's portfolio: a goal that is a good ways away, Small said.
“The end state is — future state nirvana — would be one set of software that you could do it all on,” he said. “I think that's a faraway vision. And the challenges are every unmanned system is a little bit different and has its own requirements. And each of the integration points — a destroyer, a shore base or a submarine — has slightly different integration requirements as well.
“But the vision is that we can enjoy commonality as much as possible and share pieces of software wherever possible.”
The effort mirrors a similar endeavor in the surface Navy to develop a single combat system that controls every ship's systems.
The goal here is that if a sailor who is trained on a big-deck amphibious ship transfers to a destroyer, no extra training will be necessary to run the equipment on the destroyer.
“That's an imperative going forward — we have to get to one, integrated combat system,” Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, the chief of naval operations' director of surface warfare, said in a December interview at the Pentagon with Defense News.
On the same subject
-
-
April 22, 2020 | International, Naval
Pentagon, Industry Struggle To Chart Impacts Of COVID On Arsenal
"I think a three month slow-down in program activity is an optimistic projection based on the level of damage the economy is currently sustaining." By PAUL MCLEARYon April 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM WASHINGTON: Defense industry and Pentagon leaders are struggling to assess what impact the COVID-19 pandemic will have on building and maintaining the global US arsenal, but early assessments agree there'll be some disruption and delay as the global economy teeters. How much, how long, and where those disruptions will occur are something of an open question. With massive supply chains across the globe that run from small mom and pop manufacturing shops to massive global conglomerates, there's no one formula to assess what will happen to the industrial base in the weeks and months to come. On Monday, Pentagon acquisition chief Ellen Lord said she expects the largest programs to see three-month delays, but some analysts say that assessment could be too rosy. “I think a three month slow-down in program activity is an optimistic projection based on the level of damage the economy is currently sustaining,” said Andrew Hunter, former chief of staff to two heads of Pentagon acquisition. Hunter is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The designation of the defense industry as critical infrastructure has ensured that shipyards, factories, and shops have generally remained open, as workers stagger shifts and companies provide liberal leave and teleworking where possible. That has placed the defense industry in a good position relative to other parts of the economy. But the supply chain those companies rely on “is tightly interlinked with the commercial economy, especially the aviation and automotive sectors, and this will transmit a degree of economic disruption into defense in the coming months,” Hunter said. Lord singled out the aerospace sector, along with shipyards and space launch as areas most at risk of slowdown and disruption. So far, though, the Navy and its largest shipbuilder say they're mostly working through the issues, and are staying away from putting a specific length of time on any delays. “We do not have a list of programs that are delayed, but as Ms. Lord and [Navy acquisition head James] Guerts have both said, while it's too soon to identify specific delays, generally we are expecting and planning for program disruptions,” Navy spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told me in an email. Geurts has moved to accelerate funding for some work and parts supplies so industry can eventually ramp up once the entire workforce is back on the job. Speaking to reporters last week, Geurts said over the “next three four weeks we'll get a better view of the exact delay and disruption and then how we might mitigate that, or quite frankly, where do we have opportunities where we can accelerate things” due to some excess capacity in the supply base because it's not being consumed by commercial aviation or shipbuilding. At the country's largest shipbuilder, Huntington Ingalls, company executives told me recently they're not seeing significant reductions in the number of parts they're receiving. “We are working with a few critical suppliers that are having challenges, but I think for the most part are going to be able to get through that,” said Lucas Hicks, vice president of new construction aircraft carrier programs. “We have reached out to all the suppliers and are working with them to try to help them.” There will be some pain, though how much is up for debate. Analyst Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners said in a note Monday that a three-month impact might not force companies to drastically change their expectations for the whole year. Any slippages this spring “could conceivably be made up in subsequent months, but that may be a challenge. Contractors could sustain prior guidance and just call out COVID-19 as a risk for the full year, or drop guidance altogether. No one has a perfect crystal ball.” Hawk Carlisle, president of the National Defense Industrial Association, said on a Monday conference call organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America that the slowdown in the global economy “is going to cause things to cost more, whether it's service agreements or products and manufacturing capability.” He's looking to the next congressional stimulus package for an acknowledgment “that these programs are going to exceed budget,” he added, “because of this two to three months of delays, partial workforce, paying the workforce, inability to perform on contract.” But Hunter thinks, so far, the Pentagon has handled the situation as well as can be expected: “To the department's credit, they have been aggressively looking for issues in the supply chain, which means that Ms. Lord's estimate becomes a lot more likely if they succeed in staying ahead of these problems.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/pentagon-industry-struggle-to-chart-impacts-of-covid-on-arsenal
-
December 2, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
Britain’s defense ties to the EU are still up in the air post-Brexit
By: Martin Banks BRUSSELS – The Dutch chief of defense says it would be “stupid” if the UK did not continue to be closely involved in EU-funded defense projects even when it is no longer a member of the bloc. But British future involvement in EU-led initiatives such as the European Defence Fund and PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) remains unclear, with EU member states yet to decide on a legal framework for third-party participation. With Brexit, the UK will technically become an outsider to the European Union's push for greater defense autonomy. That means London will no longer take part in EU decision-making or operational entities, and any British contribution to an EU operation will be subject to the rules that apply to third countries. Adm. Rob Bauer, chief of defense in The Netherlands, told Defense News he believes it is “imperative” that the UK remains “very closely” involved in such projects. Speaking at the sidelines of the annual European Defence Agency conference in Brussels on Thursday, Bauer said, “Remember, from a military point of view, the UK, even after Brexit, will still be a member of NATO and part of Europe. It is leaving the EU, not Europe. If the focus in Europe is on security then the UK should be part of that. To do otherwise would be stupid.” The PESCO initiative aims to develop and deploy forces at the EU level. Nearly 50 projects have been unveiled to date with the aim of pushing member states to work more closely together in the area of security and defense. So far, €13 billion has been allocated to the EDF which seeks to promote cross-border collaboration on defense research and technology projects, plus another €6.5 billion in the pipeline to upgrade roads, bridges, rail lines, ports and airports for military mobility, and €16 billion on space programs. Formal rules on third-party access to PESCO projects and the EDF are still being decided. Discussions are continuing at EU member state level, and no final decision is expected until the UK formally exits the EU, officials here said. London's departure has been delayed for the third time until Jan. 31, 2020. Bauer said, “I have spoken to the Brits about this and they have told me how difficult these discussions have been and continue to be. It is clear that agreement on access is certainly not a done deal.” “But we need to be pragmatic about this and continue to work together in the future.” His comments were broadly echoed by Lieutenant General Franz Leitgeb, Austria's Military Representative to the EU and NATO, another attendee at the EDA summit who told Defense News, “After Brexit, the UK will have third-party status, so third-party partnership rules will apply regarding its contribution to and participation in EU-funded projects like PESCO. “We still need to decide what precisely this means in the UK case but, whatever transpires, the UK has to realise this is a two-way street. That means that if the UK and its defense industry is to have access to EU-funded schemes and projects it has to contribute to these.” “Whatever happens we're going to need the current close relations on defense between the two sides to continue.” Further comment came from Benedikt Zimmer, state secretary at the German defense ministry, who took part in a session on PESCO and the EDF and said, “The more open cooperation is after Brexit, the better.” In a keynote address, Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, warned that UK involvement in EU defense and security would only become clearer once discussions start, probably at the start of 2020, on a political agreement between the two sides. Barnier told the packed audience, comprising senior military officials and personnel, that reaching agreement will be an “enormous challenge,” adding, “I do not want to interfere in the current UK election campaign but I am sure the Brits will still have an appetite for continued cooperation in the defense field. But, even so, they have to realize it will no longer be business as normal. I hope that UK defense companies, providing the rules are met, will still participate in European defense. We have the tools to make it happen but we still need to find a new framework for future cooperation.” More than 50 non-EU states have participated in Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations since its first mission in 2003, including four regional powers – namely Turkey, Russia, Brazil and South Africa. The official British position on security and defense is ambitious about the possible scope of the UK-EU relationship post-Brexit, talking about a “deep and special partnership” that would go “beyond existing third country arrangements.” However, little in the recent past suggests the UK would seek much CSDP involvement once no longer a member: the UK has not been the most enthusiastic supporter of the EU's defense agenda thus far, and it's questionable if this would change after Brexit. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/11/29/britains-defense-ties-to-the-eu-are-still-up-in-the-air-post-brexit/