Turkey provides tax breaks, loans to attract investment in local defense programs

On the same subject

• 

  February 11, 2021 | International, Aerospace

  Pentagon science office launches program to develop manufacturing in space ... and on the moon

  Nathan Strout WASHINGTON — The Defense Department's emerging technology research arm will invest in new materials and processes that could enable manufacturing in space and on the moon's surface. To that end, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is launching the Novel Orbital and Moon Manufacturing, Materials and Mass-efficient Design program, or NOM4D. “NOM4D's vision is to develop foundational materials, processes and designs needed to realize in-space manufacturing of large, precise and resilient Defense Department systems,” said Bill Carter, program manager in DARPA's Defense Sciences Office, in a press release. DARPA is launching the program in response to the natural limitations of rocket launches in placing larger structures and systems in orbit, the agency said. While the launch industry has expanded significantly in recent years, with dozens of new providers entering the fray, rocket launches are inherently limited — even the largest rockets have weight and volume restrictions. The solution? Place smaller pieces of a structure on orbit with multiple launches, and then assemble them in space. Or better yet, collect materials from the moon to build with. “We will explore the unique advantages afforded by on-orbit manufacturing using advanced materials ferried from Earth,” Carter said. “Large structures such as antennas and solar panels can be substantially more weight efficient, and potentially much more precise. We will also explore the unique features of in-situ resources obtained from the moon's surface as they apply to future defense missions.” Manufacturing in space could also enable more flexibility in the design of space systems. Today, most satellites are designed to be as compact as possible in order to be integrated with and launched on rockets. But by assembling systems in space, systems could be designed without some of those volume restrictions, allowing them to be more mass efficient. “We're looking for proposers to come up with system designs that are so mass efficient that they can only be built off-earth, and with features that enable them to withstand maneuvers, eclipses, damage and thermal cycles typical of space and lunar environments,” Carter said. “Given the constraints of ground test, launch and deployment, the traditional approach to designing space structures is not likely to result in dramatic improvements in mass efficiency. In order to take the next step, we've got to go about materials, manufacturing and design in a completely new way.” The idea of assembling systems and structures in space isn't new. Famously, the International Space System was assembled in space using a number of components individually launched into space. “People have been thinking about on-orbit manufacturing for some time, so we expect to demonstrate new materials and manufacturing technologies by the program's end,” Carter added. With NOM4D, DARPA will work with participants over three 18-month phases to develop precise, mass efficient structures that could be used for on-orbit construction. Each phase will focus on one of three applications: large solar arrays, large radio frequency reflector antennas, and segmented infrared reflective optics. The agency will host a proposers day webinar on Feb. 26 and expects to release a broad agency announcement solicitation in February. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2021/02/09/darpa-launches-new-program-to-develop-manufacturing-in-spaceand-on-the-moon/

• 

  August 16, 2019 | International, Land

  Slippery slope: MDA boss fights transfer of missile defense system to Army

  By: Jen Judson HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The new U.S. Missile Defense Agency director is opposed to the transfer of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System, or THAAD, to the Army — something Senate authorizers want to do this year in the fiscal 2020 authorization bill. Talk of transferring THAAD to the Army has been ongoing for roughly a decade. The Army officially operates the system, but the MDA conducts its development and continued modernization. Both MDA and Army leadership have said if Congress were to authorize a transfer, they would not oppose the move as long as the necessary funding is made available and not taken from other portfolios within the service. But there's still a fear that programs transferred to the services is where they go to die, either in their entirety or at least the chance of continued system modernization. For instance, there could be a plan down the road to extend the range of the THAAD interceptor. Historically, at times, when programs are transferred, funding meant to further improve systems has been cannibalized for more pressing, immediate needs within the armed services. “Why would we hand that off to the Army or Air Force, that sort of transfer to a service where it won't be prioritized? They have many other priorities,” MDA Director Vice Adm. Jon Hill told Defense News in an exclusive interview at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. “I don't like organizational experiments on programs that are delivering more fighting capability,” he added. The challenge Before Congress, the military or the MDA consider transferring such a capability, a better definition for “transfer of services” must be ironed out, Hill said. He considers defining this one of his top challenges. “It gets suspicious when we don't have a fully defined term because all it really results in is fracturing of a program during a time where it's most critical to have those programs stable and taking care of the war fighter,” Hill said. “There's been a lot of discussion about the THAAD and the SM-3 [missile] transfer to the services. What does that mean?” The definition of transfer “ranges everything from a full-up transfer of the system over to the service, which assumes that the system is static and how it's designed today is how it's going to be designed forever,” Hill said. If it means transferring operations and sustainment responsibility, and then “put that in the done pile. The Army invests heavily in the operations and sustainment of that. I don't know what more we would want out of them,” he said. The argument MDA is examining whether it is doing enough to support the Army's successful operation and sustainment of the system, he noted, such as whether the service has the right logistics line in place and the right training. A THAAD transfer could also be disruptive to production at a time when THAAD interceptors are in high demand and orders continue to grow. Even if the transfer of THAAD meant the service would responsible for interceptor procurement, the MDA would have to break contracts for the Army to take over, which could result in delayed production, according to Hill. “We know right now, in today's operational environment, we need more,” Hill said. “So that makes no sense to me.” And for Hill, a THAAD transfer is a slippery slope. If the Army took complete control of the batteries, “then there's this discussion, ‘Well, let's include the TPY/2 radar and let's walk it a little bit further and let's take the homeland defense radars that are deployed globally that have a totally different mission.” The resistance to transfer THAAD in its entirety is not a sign of a resistance to transfer where it makes sense, Hill noted. “I often hear that we don't know how to transfer. Well look at the Aegis ships today. Navy procures those ships with ballistic missile defense capability. The Navy has come in and said: ‘Hey, we're going to build a multimission radar to include BMD capability in a SPY-6 [radar],' ” Hill said. “Man, what's wrong with that? That's fantastic.” MDA has also fully transferred the Patriot air and missile defense system to the Army. “Where Patriot is different, is it's a multimission system,” Hill said. “They have air defense as part of the maneuver force. It's sort of like cruise missile defense on a ship. We don't need to take over the Navy's cruise missile defense. ... Patriot is sort of the same thing.” THAAD is part of a wider integrated missile defense system, he added. “THAAD has to stay in MDA ... for the interoperability and integration into the other domains from across the services," Riki Ellison, chairman and founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, told Defense News. "THAAD is not an Army-centric weapon system. It should never be deployed as a standoff, alone weapon system.” The Joint Urgent Operational Need out of the Korean theater that calls for the integration of THAAD and Patriot is a prime example, Ellison noted. “MDA is the only one that has cross-domain [Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications] development and operational development as proven with the [Ground-Based Midcourse Defense] System," he said. Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said: “I'm afraid the Army won't fund THAAD if it's their responsibility. We need to free up more money in MDA so it can focus on research and development, so we have a dilemma. Something has to give.” Short of the defense secretary directing the services to fund and support systems like THAAD, Heinrichs said, “they're probably just going to have to stay in MDA. That means we need a much bigger top line in MDA ... to fund the new technologies needed for advanced threats, especially.” The agency is currently advising the Pentagon and Congress on the right plan for where THAAD should live. “That's something that we have to work internally," Hill noted, "and so we need to get our act together on both sides.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2019/08/14/mda-director-opposes-transfer-of-terminal-missile-defense-system-to-army/

• 

  October 17, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  KC-46: What's Happened So Far?

  The KC-46 Pegasus is a U.S. air-refueling tanker that is expected to reach initial operating capability (IOC) around 2017. It is produced by Boeing. The KC-46 is intended to replace the first third of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) KC-135 fleet in the primary role of air-refueling, as well as in secondary roles of transport and aeromedical evacuation. Compared to the KC-135, the new aircraft can deliver more fuel at all ranges; operate from shorter runways; and carry three times as many cargo pallets, twice the number of passengers and over 30% more aeromedical evacuation patients. https://aviationweek.com/kc-46-whats-happened-so-far