Back to news

October 2, 2020 | International, C4ISR

US Army to upgrade bigger units with new electronic warfare gear

WASHINGTON — In what some observers might view as back to the future, the U.S. Army is altering the way it fights to keep up with sophisticated adversaries, which means shifting from the brigade-centered focus of the last decade to bringing the division and corps levels into the fold.

As a result, new capabilities are under development to increase range, fight deeper and bolster presence on the nonphysical battlefield, such as the electromagnetic spectrum.

Officials said a fight against a nation-state like Russia or China must begin at the corps level, where the focus is destroying high-priority systems to lay the groundwork for lower echelons. They added that the corps level must eliminate these targets first, passing them to the lower echelons to include division and brigade, which are both designed for a closer fight to move the enemy back.

“We have got to be able to see deep. If we don't have the ability to sense at the corps level, really what we're doing is we're deferring that fight down to the brigade level,” Col. Clint Tracy, III Corps cyber and electromagnetic activities chief, said during a Sept. 29 virtual panel hosted by the Association of Old Crows. “If we build the other way up, from the brigades to corps ... they may not necessarily be equipped without additional enablers to kill those things in the battlespace.”

Enter what officials are calling the Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade, or TLS-EAB, formerly referred to as TLS-Extended Range.

Army leaders this week detailed the first initial notional concepts and timeline for the new capability, which will be mainly a division and corps asset capable of reaching and prosecuting targets that the TLS system at the brigade combat team level cannot.

“TLS-EAB is intended to provide commanders at echelons above brigade the ability to sense, provide improved precision geolocation, conduct non-kinetic fires and support kinetic targeting for a broad coverage of targets ... [that] are unreachable by TLS at BCT,” Col. Jennifer McAfee, Army capability manager for terrestrial layer and identity, said during the same event. TLS-BCT, or Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team, is the Army's first brigade-focused, integrated signals intelligence, electronic warfare and cyber platform.

“TLS-EAB also provides defensive electronic attack to protect our critical nodes, i.e., our command posts and other critical nodes vulnerable to the adversary's precision fires,” McAfee added.

She also said TLS-EAB will address several gaps in large-scale combat operations to include deep sensing to help target enemy systems in anti-access/area denial environments, and to conduct reconnaissance and security at long ranges.

It will also provide capabilities for signals intelligence and electronic warfare teams within the Multidomain Task Force's Intelligence, Information, Cyber, Electronic Warfare and Space (I2CEWS) battalion, as well as signals intelligence and electronic warfare battalions at the division and corps levels.

How is TLS-EAB different from existing capabilities?

The key difference between TLS-EAB and other electronic warfare, intelligence and cyber platforms — both airborne or ground-based — is that the former protects static assets from enemy missiles and unmanned systems that use radar fusing and homing.

Officials said the new system will be broken into two broad threat categories: the aforementioned protection against precision-guided munitions dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum; and theater, corps and division targets to include ISR, command and control, low- and mid-altitude beyond-line-of-sight comminutions, navigation, and air and ground radars.

The service will achieve these effects through advanced electronic attack techniques, radio frequency-delivered cyber effects, military information support operations (formerly called psychological operations), and the deception of adversary sensors.

More granularly, TLS-EAB will be broken into two subsystems for those two missions: one for long-range collection, electronic support and effects; and one for defensive electronic attack. Each will include a trailer attached to the eventual vehicle the Army determines for TLS-EAB.

While a specific platform hasn't specifically been identified for TLS-EAB, officials said they are eyeing something wheeled from the family of medium tactical vehicles.

Interoperability and long range

Moreover, the system will connect with other reconnaissance systems in an attempt to shorten the sensor-to-shooter timeline, which involves rapidly delivery sensitive data from sensors to the platforms or individuals who take action.

These include the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node, or TITAN; the Multidomain Sensing System; TLS-BCT; the Electronic Planning and Management Tool; the Multifunction Electronic Warfare-Air Large; and the integrated tactical network.

TLS-EAB is one of the top priorities of the Army's ISR Task Force, which is modernizing the service's ability to see across huge ranges through a layered approach that involves the ground, air and space domains.

U.S. adversaries have invested in capabilities that aim to keep forces at bay, such as advanced missiles and radars. To allow American forces to penetrate those capabilities and move back ground-based adversaries, larger echelons such as the corps must be able to see and understand these regions in full, which could be over thousands of miles.

This also means sifting through all the noise in the congested electromagnetic spectrum to understand and prioritize specific targets.

As such, the corps level must see more of the spectrum than the brigade, said Tracy of III Corps, because if the higher echelons did their jobs right, there shouldn't be a whole lot left for brigades to deal with in the non-kinetic realm when they are eventually deployed.

Timeline

Units aren't expected to first receive TLS-EAB until at least fiscal 2022, the same year as TLS-BCT.

The current plan outlined by officials, which they stressed is all notional, is to have a total of 67 TLS-EABs: four per I2CEWS equaling 16; three per corps equaling nine; four per division equaling 40; and two at training locations.

The sketch provided by Army leaders is an industry day in January, with a draft request for proposals set for February and bids in October.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2020/10/01/us-army-to-upgrade-bigger-units-with-new-electronic-warfare-gear/

On the same subject

  • Japan wants to be an official F-35 partner. The Pentagon plans to say no.

    July 29, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Japan wants to be an official F-35 partner. The Pentagon plans to say no.

    By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and Mike Yeo WASHINGTON and MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan has formally expressed interest in joining the F-35 program as a full partner, but the Pentagon plans to shoot down that request, Defense News has learned. Sources say Japan's request to join the partnership creates major political headaches for the Pentagon, with fears it would cause new tensions among the international production base for the joint strike fighter and open the door for other customer nations to demand a greater role in future capability development. In a June 18 letter from Japan's Ministry of Defense to Pentagon acquisition head Ellen Lord, obtained by Defense News, Atsuo Suzuki, director general for the Bureau of Defense Buildup Planning, formally requests information on how Japan could move from being a customer of the F-35 to a full-fledged member of the industrial base consortium. “I believe becoming a partner country in F-35 program is an option,” the letter reads. “I would like to have your thoughts on whether or not Japan has a possibility to be a partner country in the first place. Also, I would like you to provide the Ministry of Defense with detailed information about the responsibilities and rights of a partner country, as well as cost sharing and conditions such as the approval process and the required period.” “We would like to make a final decision whether we could proceed to become a partner country by thoroughly examining the rights and obligations associated with becoming a partner country based on the terms and conditions you would provide,” the letter concludes. Lord, the Pentagon acquisition head, is scheduled to meet with Japanese officials this week, and the question of membership is expected to come up. But Tokyo won't like the answer. Although Lord's office will be responsible for carrying the final message to Japan, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News that the partnership remains limited to the initial wave of F-35 investors. “The F-35 cooperative Partnership closed on 15 July 2002,” stated Brandi Schiff, a spokesperson for the F-35 JPO. The decision was documented in an April 2002 memo by the Pentagon's acquisition executive stating that, “except for those countries with which we are already engaged in Level III System Development and Demonstration partnership negotiation by 15 July 2002, we will not be able to accommodate any additional Level III partners due to our inability to offer equitable government-to-government benefits and U.S. industry's inability to offer equitable 'best value' workshare arrangements,” according to Schiff. The F-35 partners in 2007 reiterated in a separate memo that only the partners who participated in the development phase of the F-35 program would be eligible to remain partners during the production, sustainment and modernization stages. A source familiar with internal discussions says the Pentagon is concerned that letting Japan become a program partner would lead to other nations demanding similar access. Japan's query is hitting the F-35 program at a time of change. Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the JPO, retired this month after only two years on the job, and Turkey's pursuit of a Russian air defense system has resulted in them being booted from the F-35 consortium, with all work being done by its companies to end early next year. So in many ways, Japan asking to be made a full partner now makes sense, said a former senior official in the F-35 program, who agreed to speak on background out of respect for current decision makers. “You now lost a partner in Turkey, so there is a vacant parking space, so to speak. And other than the U.S. services, [Japan] will be the one nation with the most F-35s,” the former official said, noting two changes that have happened in just the last year. “Ultimately, the Department of Defense, in coordination with the State Department, made up the rules," the former official said. "The Department of Defense can change the rules.” Global impact There are two tiers of participation in the F-35 program. The first-tier members are considered “partners” in the program, which comes with direct involvement in the joint program office. That includes having national representatives stationed in the JPO, weighing in on decisions about future capabilities, and deciding what future industrial participation looks like. And that industrial participation is important — building parts of the jet that go into the global supply chain is expected to net the partner nations billions in revenue over the lifetime of the program. The partners are made up of the first nine nations to sign onto the program: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The second tier consists of “customers” for the jet, comprising nations that came later to the program. Those nations command less industrial participation, lack voting power on what future development of the jet looks like, and do not have officials assigned to the JPO. That tier is made up of Israel, South Korea, Belgium and Japan, but could expand in the future with Finland, Singapore and other nations. In December 2018, Japan announced a plan to expand procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147 jets, making it the single largest F-35 operator outside of the United States, as well as one of only three foreign nations to operate the F-35B jump-jet model. But Tokyo appears interested in increasing its teaming with the program, in large part because it wishes to take part in guiding new capabilities development as the plane gets ready for its Block 4 upgrade. “There are various merits in participating in continuous capability development and delivery deliberation process by partner countries. In addition, there is a further need to obtain flight safety information for accountability to the public,” the letter from the Japanese defense ministry reads. “I understand that partner countries are allowed to join [JSF Executive Steering Board], to be involved in capability improvement, to dispatch their personnel to JPO, to participate in parts production and to access further information.” The emphasis on the need to obtain flight safety information is notable, after an F-35A crashed into the ocean in April, resulting in the loss of both the plane and its pilot. Japanese officials have since blamed the crash on spatial distortion for the pilot. However, customer nations receive the same safety information that partners do, albeit slightly delayed due to the need to clear information. The letter also acknowledges that “partner countries share significant costs,” an indication that Japan would be willing to pony up more cash in order to join the inner circle of F-35 members. From a pure program logistics perspective, Japan becoming a partner would not be a problem, and in fact program officials would likely find it easier to deal with the largest foreign buyer of the F-35 as a partner rather than customer overall. The politics, however, quickly get tricky. Should Japan be allowed to join, the former official noted, “you've opened Pandora's box.” The former official specifically said that South Korea, due to its complicated political relationship with Japan, and Israel, which was the first nation to be added as a customer after the partnership option was closed, would try to use Japan's joining the program as a way in, as well. The official also highlighted Belgium, for now the sole NATO ally buying the F-35 as a customer and not a partner, as a nation with a strong case for promotion should Japan be allowed in. The best argument DoD could make would be that the sheer size of Japan's buy deserves special privileges, but that sets a bar that other nations could look to climb and effectively buy their way into a partnership. “This is a very interesting political football that DoD has to wrestle with. This is a bigger political decision than a programmatic one,” the former official noted. “I personally think DoD doesn't want the headache if they say yes.” No other countries have made formal requests to join the program, Schiff confirmed. Requests for comment from Lord's office, as well as the Japanese MoD, were not returned by press time. Benefits for Japan In terms of industrial participation, there are opportunities for Japanese firms to pick up work that has been removed from Turkey, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Major Turkish defense firms have had a hand in building hundreds of parts for the jet. Turkey's expulsion from the program, which includes the United States blocking Turkey's planned procurement of 100 fighters, means that production will at least temporarily move to the United States, with a plan to farm it out to other partners in the future. Turkey's aerostructures work could be picked up by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and to a lesser extent Kawasaki and Subaru, Aboulafia said. But he said he was “baffled” by the idea Japan would want more industrial participation at the same time they have publicly moved away from its domestic final assembly and check out (FACO) facility, which since 2013 has handled final production on Japan's domestic F-35s. The FACO facility, which is operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, will continue to carry out production work until FY22 to fulfill the F-35As contracted by Japan between FY15 and FY18. Instead, Aboulafia sees Japan's interest as being driven by a desire for future developments, given the decision to increase the island nation's planned procurement of the jet. “If they are going to base their fighter force on this plane for decades to come, they clearly want a say in how this plane is upgraded,” he said. “It's a sovereignty thing.” And floating in the background is another potential complicating factor for the Pentagon: Japan's continued drive to develop an indigenous fighter. Japan is developing a new fighter type to replace the indigenous Mitsubishi F-2 fighter currently in service, and wants the new design to enter service in the 2030s. It is also looking at development pathways for this project, with a fully indigenous design, collaboration with a foreign partner, or a spinoff from an existing fighter design being considered as possible options. The country is already conducting research and development into a number of relevant areas for fighter design, including stealth technologies, fighter engines and active electronically scanned radars, and had previously built a technology demonstrator, the X-2 Shinshin, and carried out a series of test flights with this aircraft to validate these technologies. Asked if the Japanese could be considering the fighter program in their decision to pursue membership in the F-35, Aboulafia bluntly responded, “How could they not?” Schiff, the JPO spokesperson, said the F-35 remains a critical focal point of the U.S.-Japan alliance. “Any opportunities to strengthen the alliance through interoperability and cooperation will be emphasized. As an FMS customer, Japan participates in F-35 user groups and other bi-lateral forums and engagements," she said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/07/29/japan-wants-to-be-an-official-f-35-partner-the-pentagon-plans-to-say-no/

  • Planes could give heads-up when part is about to break

    August 3, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Planes could give heads-up when part is about to break

    By: Charlsy Panzino What if an aircraft could tell you a part needs maintenance before it actually breaks? That's the kind of technology that the head of Air Mobility Command is hoping to install on the command's aircraft as one way to deal with its older fleet. The goal is to outfit the planes with instruments that will monitor specific equipment and relay information back to the maintainers, giving them a heads up if a part is worn out and needs to be repaired or replaced. “As the airplane is beeping and squeaking ... as it's passing its zeros and ones, we can do an algorithm on the data that is received and we can say, predictability means this is going to fail at that time, go check that part,” Gen. Carlton Everhart told Air Force Times at the Pentagon on Thursday. Everhart said instruments have been installed on one of AMC's C-5M Super Galaxy transport aircraft to begin testing the idea of predictive maintenance. Full article: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/08/02/planes-could-give-heads-up-when-part-is-about-to-break

  • Brexit : Londres promet de continuer à jouer un rôle majeur dans la défense européenne

    February 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Brexit : Londres promet de continuer à jouer un rôle majeur dans la défense européenne

    LE BREXIT ET LES ENTREPRISES Londres veut continuer à assumer un rôle majeur dans la sécurité européenne, mais le pays sort de l'Union au moment où celle-ci s'engage davantage pour assurer la sécurité des Etats membres. Ce qui soulève de nombreuses questions. Anne Bauer @annebauerbrux Les Britanniques ne cessent de le répéter : leur départ de l'Union européenne ne remet pas en cause leur volonté de continuer à jouer un rôle de premier plan dans la défense de l'Europe. Ainsi la Grande-Bretagne participe, depuis le premier jour, à l'Initiative européenne d'intervention (IEI), le club des Etats-Majors européens lancé par le président Emmanuel Macron. Elle est, avec la France, le principal appui des Américains dans la coalition internationale au Levant et au Sahel, elle soutient les forces françaises par la mise à disposition de trois hélicoptères Chinook. En termes de coopération militaire, les Britanniques sont à bord de l'avion de chasse européen, Eurofighter, de l'avion de transport militaire A400M, de la constellation Galileo et de divers programmes de missiles, notamment via la firme européenne MBDA. Et en novembre prochain, la France et la Grande-Bretagne, les deux seules armées du continent européen dotées de l'arme nucléaire, devraient fêter les dix ans du traité bilatéral de Lancaster House et lancer, à l'occasion, un projet clé : le démonstrateur d'un nouveau missile de croisière franco-britannique . Pas de risque à court terme Chez le missilier européen MBDA, on insiste d'ailleurs sur « la force et la pérennité de la relation franco-britannique en matière de défense et de sécurité, initiée en 1998 à Saint-Malo et formalisée en 2010 par le traité de Lancaster House ». Et de rappeler que cette relation bilatérale est au coeur même du projet de l'entreprise , qui est de b'tir un champion mondial des missiles, en partageant l'effort industriel au travers de programmes en coopération européenne. De fait, du côté des industriels de la défense, le Brexit inquiète peu à court terme. Les biens de défense sont exonérés des règles générales de l'OMC sur les droits de douane. Et le commerce des armes est un sujet à part, régi par des conventions particulières. Dans l'aéronautique en outre, chacun est désormais certain que Londres restera membre de l'Agence européenne de sécurité aérienne, qui édicte les normes et veille à leur application. Interrogé par « Les Echos », le patron d'Airbus, Guillaume Faury, déclarait en septembre dernier que « les craintes relatives à la perte des certifications aéronautiques de production et de conception pour les pièces produites au Royaume-Uni, ainsi que pour la libre circulation de nos employés, ont été écartées, à force de travail en interne et avec les gouvernements. » Fonds européen de défense : in or out ? Toutefois, le Brexit intervient au moment même où l'UE engage une dynamique nouvelle en matière de défense. Pour la première fois, le budget européen pourra servir à subventionner la recherche et le développement de programmes d'armement. Or de facto, les Anglais sont déjà hors jeu. Dans l'anticipation du Brexit, ils ne participent pas à la nouvelle politique de « coopération structurée permanente », qui a donné naissance à une quarantaine de projets de coopération dans la défense entre divers pays européens. Et, faute de répondant côté anglais, Paris s'est tourné vers Berlin pour envisager le futur de deux équipements clé de défense : l'avion de combat du futur et le char de nouvelle génération. Les Britanniques ne font pas non plus partie du futur Fonds européen de défense, qui doit aider au financement de ses projets. Enfin, ils quittent les instances dirigeantes de l'Agence européenne de défense. Au sein des industriels du secteur, nombre d'opérateurs souhaitent le retour de la Grande-Bretagne dans les instances européennes. Terrain d'entente Car personne n'a intérêt à maintenir des tensions, comme celles nées de l'exclusion de Londres du réseau protégé de communication gouvernementale, de la constellation Galileo. Dans l'aéronautique, chacun espère que le futur avion de combat franco-allemand, le SCAF, et son concurrent britannique, le projet Tempest mené avec les Italiens et les Suèdois, se rejoindront un jour. « C'est dans l'intérêt des Britanniques comme dans celui des Européens, qu'un terrain d'entente soit trouvé dans les futurs traités d'association qui seront négociés cette année », commente le président de MBDA, Eric Béranger. « Le Royaume-Uni devrait pouvoir bénéficier d'un statut particulier qui permettra de poursuivre les nombreuses coopérations qu'il a en Europe, dans les missiles bien évidemment, mais aussi dans l'aviation militaire ou le spatial de défense », ajoute-t-il. Mais avec un groupe principal de défense BAE Systems, qui est déjà un important fournisseur de l'armée américaine, la tentation britannique peut être de regarder davantage outre-Atlantique qu'outre Manche. https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/brexit-londres-promet-de-continuer-a-jouer-un-role-majeur-dans-la-defense-europeenne-1168197

All news