August 31, 2023 | International, Naval
The destroyer's modernization period includes installation of the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile system.
February 24, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Land, C4ISR
Officially launched in October 2020, the VL MICA NG system is based on the integration of the MICA NG missile into the existing VL MICA point and close area air defence...
August 8, 2019 | International, Aerospace
By: Nathan Strout The Army is interested in a new commercial satellite service with a focus on small, mobile terminals. According to a July 2 request for information, the Army wants to expand beyond line-of-sight communications capabilities for tactical users with a new commercial satellite service. The proposed network would put small terminals, slightly bigger than the larger iPad Pro, in the hands of soldiers in the field, allowing them to communicate via a low earth orbit or medium earth orbit constellation. John Swart, the director of the Army's Technology Applications Office, said that the Army was simply interested in learning more from industry. He declined to provide further comment. The Army currently relies on a combination of military and commercial satellites for beyond line-of-sight communications, but satellite coverage and the size of terminals can limit their availability. The suggested satellite service would provide the Army with global coverage, excluding the polar regions. Part of the benefit of using LEO or even MEO satellites is that they reduce the need for larger, bulkier terminals. Since they are closer to Earth, users need less powerful terminals to communicate with the satellites. That means the terminals can be physically smaller, and that's a key focus of the request. The Army wants the commercial satellite service provider to supply troops with so-called “ultra sat terminals” ― basically small terminals 12 inches by 12 inches. Ideally, the Army wants terminals for aircraft, vehicles and dismounts that are small enough to fit in a rucksack, although airborne terminals can be larger. These terminals would preferably be able to switch between satellites as they move from coverage area to coverage area, allowing for uninterrupted service. Broadly, Department of Defense leaders have said that as they develop new satellite architectures they will have face a significant expense in replacing legacy terminals that are not compatible with modern satellites. While the service said it is willing to obtain the satellite services and terminals from different suppliers, they would prefer to go with one provider. It's not clear from the request how many terminals the Army would be interested in acquiring. Responses to the request were due July 31. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/c2-comms/2019/08/07/army-interested-in-ipad-sized-satellite-terminals/
October 27, 2020 | International, C4ISR
Murray Brewster It's not the Space Force you may have heard about. Still, NATO's newly announced space centre boldly takes the seven-decade-old institution where no international military alliance has gone before. Most of its leading members and adversaries have sought individual advantage in the final frontier over the decades. And while the European Space Agency is a collective body, its civilian mission and its politics are inarguably different from those of NATO. That difference was on display this week as NATO defence ministers, meeting online, put the final pieces in place for the new centre, which has been in the works for a couple of years. "The space environment has fundamentally changed in the last decade," said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. "Some nations, including Russia and China, are developing anti-satellite systems that could blind, disable or shoot down satellites and create dangerous debris in orbit." NATO "must increase our understanding of the challenges in space," he said. Unlike U.S. President Donald Trump's much-hyped plan to make the Space Force a separate branch of the U.S. military, the North Atlantic alliance has been careful to present its space centre not as a "war fighting" arm but as something purely defensive. A 1967 international treaty commits 110 countries, including the United States and Canada, to limiting their use of space to "peaceful purposes" alone and prohibits the basing of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear bombs, for instance) in orbit. It further prohibits the militarization of the moon and other celestial bodies. Stoltenberg has insisted that alliance activities will be in line with international law. The rising threat of war in space That's an important point for Paul Meyer, adjunct professor of international studies in international security at Simon Fraser University in B.C. He warned in a recent policy paper for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute that the "prospects for armed conflict in space appear more likely than they have been since the days of the Cold War." Meyer said world leaders should think hard about what role — if any — arms control could play in avoiding a war in space. "Diplomatic solutions are not being pursued, despite the fact that irresponsible state conduct in space can ruin it for everyone," he said Friday. NATO has no satellites or space infrastructure of its own — but many member nations do and Stoltenberg said the alliance will draw on their expertise in setting up the new centre. Almost all modern militaries rely on satellites. In any major conflict between NATO and either Russia or China, the orbital communication and navigation grid would be the first piece of infrastructure to be hit. Not only does NATO need satellites for surveillance, reconnaissance and communications, an increasing number of military operations are being targeted from space. A good example is the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, during which 68 per cent of airstrikes employed smart bombs guided by lasers and satellites. Those "eyes in the sky" are also important for defence against ballistic missiles and (naturally) weather forecasting. Diplomacy and deterrence Dan Coats, the former U.S. director of national intelligence, warned Congress almost two years ago that China and Russia have trained and equipped their military space forces with new anti-satellite weapons. Those warnings have not been limited to the Trump administration. In the spring of 2019, Norway accused Russia of "harassing" communications systems and jamming Norwegian Armed Forces GPS signals. Last spring, the NATO space centre reported that Moscow had test-fired a satellite-killing missile. Frank Rose, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said in a recent online policy analysis that outer space will need to be "mainstreamed" within NATO when it comes to planning and operations. He also argued that the alliance will need to find a way to "incorporate diplomacy into any eventual strategy." Meyer agreed and noted in his October 2020 policy paper that Canada is largely absent from any meaningful debate on the militarization of space. The Global Affairs website, he said, contains outdated material, is full of banal, non-specific references and is largely devoid of Canadian content. "Pity the Canadian citizen who wishes to understand where our country stands on this troubling issue of outer space security," Meyer wrote. It's not clear what sort of contribution Canada might make to the new NATO space centre. In a statement, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said it's important for Canada's allies to develop a strategy that "ensures a peaceful use of space while protecting ourselves. "Canada has been a leading voice in NATO about the importance of space for the Alliance and we remain committed to working with our Allies and partners to prevent space from becoming an arena of conflict." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-space-command-space-militarization-stoltenberg-1.5775269