News

By: Jen Judson NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Several major players in the helicopter industry pitched possible solutions at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space conference for the Navy's next initial-entry, rotary-wing training helicopter as the service signals stronger intentions to replace its aging TH-57 Sea Ranger fleet. The Navy has announced during recent congressional hearings that it plans to buy a new training helicopter in fiscal 2020. For years, the service has put out requests for information asking industry for training helicopter options with the latest coming out in October 2017. That RFI left some requirements open-ended such as whether the aircraft should have one or two engines, but has asked for the helicopter to be Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) certified, an obvious requirement when flying over sea or in reduced visibility environments. It's also assumed the Navy wants a commercial off-the-shelf aircraft. The TH-57 is more than reaching the end of its life, having first been fielded to the Navy's training fleet in the 1970s. So three companies — Airbus, Bell and Leonardo — all brought examples of possible training helicopters to the Navy's biggest trade show. Airbus H135 Airbus is keeping all of its options on the table for a Navy trainer because the service has yet to define all of its requirements, according to John Roth, senior director of business development for Airbus Helicopters Inc. “We have a broad product range that goes from light, single-engine into light, twin-engine to medium and heavy twin-engine platforms,” Roth told Defense News at Sea-Air-Space. “Our approach is we will evaluate those requirements and offer based on those requirements. However, given the nature of training and how the complexity of training has evolved over time, we do have recommendations for the Navy as it relates to having the best possible solution to accomplish all of their missions.” And one recommendation is the H135 light, twin-engine helicopter Airbus had on display at the show. “We believe this is certainly a very capable potential solution that meets all the Navy requirements as a commercial off-the-shelf product,” Roth said. The H135 is similar to the EC-145 helicopter that the Army now uses for its trainer, replacing its TH-67 Creek helicopters with LUH-72A Lakota light utility helicopters already in the service's inventory beginning in 2014. The Army's decision to retire the TH-67s and replace them with Lakotas was met with much debate as to whether it made sense to teach helicopter pilots basic skills in a more complex digital glass cockpit helicopter with twin engines. And the decision was even met with a lawsuit. Leonardo — then known as AgustaWestland — sued the Army over its decision not to compete for a new trainer but to instead sole-source a helicopter already fielded by the service. Leonardo initially won the lawsuit but the decision was overturned in the appellate court. The Army is still filling out its Lakota training fleet, but, Roth said, “from a qualitative perspective, we've got some very positive feedback that talks to capability of the aviators when they complete the training and having them more prepared for the advanced aircraft once they arrive at their advanced training stations.” The fact that both the Lakota and the H135 have advanced digital glass cockpits, four-axis autopilot and twin-engine capability with Full Authority Digital Engine (FADEC) controls “all prepared them for the type of vehicle that they are going to get in when they get into their advanced training,” Roth said. The Army has taken tasks normally taught in the more expensive advanced aircraft and brought those down to basic training, he added. “There has been a lot of advantages realized from that decision that we think the Navy will be able to take advantage of as well,” Roth said. The H135s, if purchased by the Navy, would be built at its Columbus, Mississippi, production line where commercial EC135s and Lakotas are built. The helicopter pitched to the Navy is also used by approximately a dozen countries with nearly 130 aircraft serving as a primary trainer worldwide, Roth said. Bell 407 GXi Bell would be the incumbent in a competition for a new Navy trainer, being the current manufacturer of the TH-57. The company plans to offer up its 407 GXi, according to Steve Mathias, Bell's vice president for Global Military Business Development. Bell has already built and sold 1,500 407s worldwide which have flown over 4.75 million hours, he said, so the helicopter is “very reliable, sustainable, maintainable glass cockpit, just a great overall aircraft,” Mathias said. And from a programmatic perspective, he said, choosing Bell's trainer offers “a lot less risk because it's very similar to the TH-57 that the Navy currently has, so a transition from a Bell product to a Bell product would be a lower risk, I would think, to the customer.” Bell also provides many of the helicopters the Navy and Marine Corps fly today such as the UH-1Y Venom, the AH-1Z Viper and the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor and therefore has a high level of experience working with the services on a day-to-day basis “so we very closely understand what the Navy requirements are,” Mathias argued. The company is hoping the Navy chooses to go with a single-engine aircraft because it would “be less costly to operate” and less complex to train, according to Mathias. He added that he believes the choice would offer the best value to the service. Leonardo TH-119 Italian company Leonardo is making a play for the trainer with plans to submit its TH-119, which puts them, like Bell, into the single-engine camp, according to Andrew Gappy, who is in charge of the company's government sales and programs. The helicopter is a variant of the AW119Kx, a single-engine, full-spectrum training aircraft and can be used for training from the basics like learning how to hover above the ground all the way to advanced tactics. And while Leonardo is a foreign company, all of the 119s worldwide are manufactured in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The 119 is also IFR certified to meet that Navy requirement. The helicopter is known for its significant power, which means the aircraft's training mission sets can grow and change over time without affecting its performance, Gappy said. It's important for the Navy to buy a new trainer now because, Gappy said, he trained on the TH-57 “a long time ago.” The aircraft averages roughly 70,000 flight hours a year and will become more and more costly to operate as it continues to age. “When I went through, the TH-57 had a lot in common with combat aircraft, how the aircraft flew and instrumentation training was really relevant,” he said. “It's so disparate now with glass cockpits and all of them are multi-bladed rotor systems that fly differently than the twin rotor system, so it's really resetting the baseline,” which allows the service to incorporate more advanced training into the basic courses that has migrated away from that training due to the loss in power margin, Gappy said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/11/major-players-pitch-solutions-for-navys-next-training-helicopter/

By: Victoria Leoni NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Bright yellow underwater drones were a visible highlight on the exhibition floor here at the Sea-Air-Space Exposition. Among the autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) featured: a new high-speed, micro-sized vehicle by Hydroid and a subsea drone refueling station by Teledyne Energy. Hydroid's Remus M3V is substantially smaller than previous models. With a compact, A-size (36-inch long, 4.875-inch diameter) envelope and no fins or appendages, the vehicle can achieve speeds of more than 10 knots and dive up to 300 meters. It can be used in search and survey; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); and multivehicle missions. With its variable center of gravity, the Remus M3V can also operate in buoy mode. Its key marketing points are its small size, low cost and compatibility with existing AUV operating systems. “The Navy always wants more with less,” said Justin S. Reid, business development manager at Hydroid. “They want a smaller vehicle that can do the same things as a larger vehicle, and also the price point to match it.” Teledyne Energy featured its untethered subsea power station at the exposition, along with its Gavia AUV. The Gavia can perform side-scan sonar operations to capture images of the sea floor. It is intended to travel ahead of Navy fleets and transmit oceanographic data back to the vessels. Teledyne's subsea power station can remotely refuel the Gavia and other underwater vehicles. Deployable via ship or helicopter, the fuel cell system has an energy storage of 200 kilowatt-hours and an operating depth of 3,000 meters. Teledyne will demonstrate the subsea power station at the Navy's Advanced Naval Technology Exercise in August. Get more news from the expo here. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/10/new-undersea-drones-are-smaller-cheaper-and-can-be-refueled-deep-under-water/

By: Brandon Knapp Artificially intelligent systems must be able to explain themselves to operators if they are to be trusted, according to an expert from the Defense Advanced Research Agency, who voiced concern that methods used by current AI systems are often masked by mysterious algorithms. “A lot of the machine learning algorithms we're using today, I would tell you ‘good luck,” Fred Kennedy, the director of DARPA's Tactical Technology Office during a panel at Navy League's Sea-Air-Space on April 10. “We have no idea why they know the difference between a cat and a baboon.” “If you start diving down into the neural net that's controlling it,” Kennedy continued, “you quickly discover that the features these algorithms are picking out have very little to do with how humans identify things.” Kennedy's comments were in response to Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems Frank Kelley, who described the leap of faith operators must make when dealing with artificially intelligent systems. “You're throwing a master switch on and just praying to God that [Naval Research Laboratory] and John's Hopkins knew what the hell that they were doing,” Kelley said of the process. The key to building trust, according to Kennedy, lies with the machines. “The system has to tell us what it's thinking,” Dr. Kennedy said. “That's where the trust gets built. That's how we start to use and understand them.” DARPA's Explainable Artificial Intelligence program seeks to teach AI how to do just that. The program envisions systems that will have the ability to explain the rationale behind their decisions, characterize their strengths and weaknesses, and describe how they will behave in the future. Such capabilities are designed to improve teamwork between man and machine by encouraging warfighters to trust artificially intelligent systems. “It's always going to be about human-unmanned teaming,” said Kennedy. “There is no doubt about that.” https://www.defensenews.com/home/2018/04/10/darpa-official-to-build-trust-in-ai-machines-must-explain-themselves/

News release From: National Defence April 9, 2018 – Ottawa, Ontario – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces Problem solving, creativity and knowledge are critical to meet and mitigate evolving defence and security threats. Through innovation we will develop and maintain capabilities that address the challenges of today's global security environment. To transform the way we generate solutions to complex defence and security challenges, today, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan launched the new Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program. Originally announced in June 2017 with the release of Canada's defence policy Strong, Secure, Engaged, IDEaS will invest $1.6 billion into Canada's innovation community over the next 20 years. Through IDEaS, DND will reach out to Canada's most innovative and creative minds, whether they are inventors, academics in university labs, or scientists in small and major corporations. These innovative thinkers will provide the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and Canada's safety and security communities with unique solutions to today's challenges. IDEaS will stimulate innovation through a range of activities including competitions, networks, and sandboxes to field test concepts. Today, Minister Sajjan announced the first call for proposals under the IDEaS Competitive Projects element, in which sixteen defence and security challenges have been identified. Interested parties have six weeks to submit their proposed solutions, which must be received by May 24, 2018. This call for proposals addresses challenges in domains such as surveillance, cyber tools for defence, space, artificial intelligence, remotely pilot systems, data analytics, and human performance. Proposals will be reviewed and undergo a rigorous evaluation process. The first contracts are anticipated to be awarded in Fall 2018. Innovators are encouraged to consult the IDEaS website for more information on this and subsequent calls as the IDEaS program continues to take shape. Quotes “The IDEaS Program will provide unique opportunities for Canadians to put forward their best solutions on defence and security challenges, and will help put those solutions into the hands of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. This investment will support the growth and expansion of Canada's innovation community for the next 20 years.” – Minister of National Defence, Harjit S. Sajjan Quick facts Through IDEaS, National Defence will: Create networks of innovators (academia, industry, individuals, and other partners) to conduct leading-edge research and development in areas critical to future defence and security needs; Hold competitions and invite innovators to present viable solutions to specific defence and security challenges; and Implement new procurement mechanisms that allow Defence to develop and test concepts and to follow through on the most promising ideas. IDEaS will help innovators by supporting analysis, funding research, and developing processes that facilitate access to knowledge. It will also support testing, integration, adoption, and acquisition of creative solutions for Canada's defence and security communities. Associated links Backgrounder –Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) Program Backgrounder - Government of Canada calls on innovative thinkers to solve defence and security challenges IDEaS Strong, Secure, Engaged Contacts Byrne Furlough Press Secretary Office of the Minister of National Defence Phone: 613-996-3100 Email: Byrne.Furlong@forces.gc.ca Media Relations Department of National Defence Phone: 613-996-2353 Email: mlo-blm@forces.gc.ca

(B2) Quand on regarde l'équipement des Européens, en avions de chasse ou de combat, on remarque une constante. Les pays européens préfèrent acheter américain qu'européen. Mais à y regarder de près, on voit aussi que ceux qui proclament haut et fort qu'ils sont tenants de l'Europe de la défense ne sont pas toujours ceux que l'on croit. Ce papier a fait l'objet d'une chronique dans l'excellente émission ‘La Faute à l'Europe‘, de FranceTvInfo, animée par mes confrères Yann Antony-Noguès, Kattalin Landaburu, Jean Quatremer et préparée par Hughes Beaudouin. Combien de pays ne volent pas avec du matériel américain ? Cela se compte sur les doigts d'une main et un doigt. Seuls six pays ne volent pas américains (en bleu et en vert sur la carte) : France, Allemagne, Suède, Rép. Tchèque, Autriche, Hongrie. Parmi ces pays, il faut distinguer la Suède (Gripen) et la France (Rafale) qui s'équipent uniquement en national (en vert sur la carte), et l'Allemagne qui vole avec du matériel européen (Eurofigther) certes mais fabriqué sur son sol. Tandis que l'Autriche, la Hongrie et la Tchéquie volent avec du matériel acheté chez un de leurs voisins. Le premier en Eurofighter, les deux autres en matériel suédois. Certains pays pratiquent-ils un équipement mixte ? Oui. Le panachage est un procédé typique de plusieurs pays (en jaune sur la carte). C'est le cas de tous les pays du Sud de l'Europe — l'Ejército del aire espagnole, l'Aeronautica italienne, l'Hellenic Air Force —, qui ont jusqu'ici pris grand soin d'avoir au moins deux modèles dans leur flotte aérienne : l'un de fabrication UE, l'autre de fabrication US. A une exception notable près : le Portugal. C'est aussi le cas... du Royaume-Uni. ... le Royaume-Uni aussi ? Qui l'eut cru ! Ce pays très attaché au lien transatlantique prend bien soin d'équilibrer ses achats entre le made in USA et le made in Europa. Une tradition de la Royal Air Force. Les Britanniques — à la différence des Français — préfèrent fabriquer en multinational que fabriquer en solo. Cela a été le cas du Tornado (un avion fabriqué avec l'Allemagne et l'Italie) puis de l'Eurofighter (renommé Typhoon outre-Manche). Hors de l'aviation de chasse, c'est aussi le cas de l'Airbus A400M. Un pragmatisme qui a un fondement très industriel. Une partie de ces avions (européens) sont fabriqués dans les usines britanniques. Y-a-t-il des tendances géopolitiques dans l'équipement exclusif made in USA ? Clairement. Les pays qui ont une frontière avec la Russie s'équipent exclusivement en matériel américain (en orange sur la carte), en général avec du F-16 (fabriqués par General Dynamics, aujourd'hui repris par Lockheed Martin). Il ne s'agit pas alors seulement de performances de l'appareil mais aussi d'avoir une ‘assurance-vie' américaine... et de bénéficier à moindre prix d'une flotte d'appareils. Ceux-ci étant souvent amortis ou d'occasions. ... et d'autres raisons plus idéologiques ? Les pays du nord de l'Europe (Norvège, Danemark, Pays-Bas, Belgique) sont aussi équipés en matériel américain. Il s'agit là d'une solidarité euro-atlantique plutôt que d'une solidarité européenne. Assez atypique par rapport à ses voisins, le Portugal a également acheté du matériel américain, pour des raisons idéologiques (et des raisons politiques très personnelles). Hors de l'Union européenne, même la neutre Suisse vole US : avec des F/A 18 Hornet fabriqués par Boeing (1). Décidément, en matière d'équipement d'avions de chasse... ceux qui se prétendent très Européens ne sont pas toujours ceux que l'on croit. Dans ce panorama, comment se situent les Français ? La France est totalement isolée. Son aviation de chasse est équipée uniquement de matériel national (2). Mais, à la différence de la Suède, autre producteur national, et du précédent du Mirage, Dassault n'a pas réussi à exporter son Rafale (avion pourtant excellent) dans d'autres pays en Europe. Certes, deux pays figurent aujourd'hui dans la lunette de tir de Paris : la Belgique et la Suisse. Cela nécessitera cependant un sacré effort pour convaincre ces deux pays, francophones, de s'équiper ‘français'. Dans le futur, le Rafale pourrait être ainsi le dernier avion à être produit en ‘national'. L'avion du futur (habité ou non = drone) devra l'être avec un autre pays (Royaume-Uni ou/et Allemagne). Une raison davantage économique que politique. La France ne peut plus suivre en solo. Quel est l'avantage comparatif du matériel américain ? On ne peut pas vraiment en vouloir à un pays de choisir un modèle éprouvé, compétent, suffisant pour les besoins nationaux et qui procure un rapport qualité / prix très convenable, voire largement supérieur au prix d'un avion européen. Le F-16 a été produit en grand nombre : environ 4500 exemplaires. Ce qui permet des économies d'échelle. La moitié a été achetée par l'US Air Force, la moitié à l'export. Pour un avion Eurofighter, Rafale ou JAS 39 neuf, vous pouvez vous payer environ quatre F-16 d'occasion. Outre les raisons politiques, acheter US est-il efficace ? Oui. Il faut le reconnaitre. L'avantage d'acheter US, c'est appartenir à un club mondial. Le club des pays équipés du F-16 se réunit d'ailleurs régulièrement pour échanger ou demander des modifications. Et quand on interroge des pilotes équipés de ce type d'avions, la liste des avantages est longue. On « bénéficie de l'expérience des autres » m'expliquait ainsi un officier. « Il y a une mise à jour constante des avions». Le « F-16 d'aujourd'hui ne ressemble ainsi plus du tout au F-16 acheté à l'époque ». En déplacement ou en opération, autre atout, il est toujours possible de trouver un voisin qui a une pièce de rechange ou un mécano capable de vous donner un coup de main. Très appréciable. Et, puis, il ne faut pas le nier. L'aura de l'Amérique joue. Le plaisir de côtoyer de près les pilotes américains, d'aller s'entraîner en Arizona que dans la plaine du Pô ou au-dessus de l'Auvergne La tendance pourrait-elle s'inverser ? Pour l'instant, aucun signe ne le montre. Les derniers pays qui viennent de s'équiper (Roumanie, Croatie, Slovaquie) l'ont fait avec du F-16. Et les Bulgares devraient suivre ce chemin. Les Autrichiens ont remis en cause leur équipement avec l'Eurofighter d'Airbus. L'accusation américaine du protectionnisme européen est-elle valable ? Non. C'est un pur mensonge... ou alors cela se révèle d'une incompétence notoire. L'arrivée de l'avion américain de nouvelle génération F-35 (fabriqué par Lockheed Martin) dans la flotte de plusieurs États va siphonner tous les budgets pour de longues années. Il est assez coûteux, son prix réel toujours très incertain. Mais, surtout, l'équipement en avion de chasse est un investissement lourd. Le renouvellement n'intervient que tous les 20 ans (au mieux si achat d'occasion) à 40 ans (si achat en neuf). Autant dire que les acquisitions prévues aujourd'hui vont plomber l'industrie européenne jusqu'à 2060 ! Les Américains sont-ils seuls en cause ? Non. Accuser les Américains d'être trop puissants, c'est surtout mettre le doigt sur un problème typiquement européen : la dispersion. L'industrie aéronautique européenne est éclatée entre trois constructeurs (Airbus, Dassault, Saab). Ce qui l'empêche d'avoir un modèle unique (quitte à ce qu'il soit décliné en plusieurs versions) et donc des économies d'échelle. Quand il s'agit de choisir un nouvel avion, les petits egos nationaux, tout comme les différences de portée stratégique, empêchent de s'unir. Pourquoi ne pas s'équiper comme certains le font avec des modèles fabriqués dans différents pays ? Ce type d'équipement mixte est réservé à des pays qui disposent de certains moyens et d'une certaine flotte. Car il coûte cher. La tendance, aujourd'hui, est plutôt désormais de s'équiper avec un seul modèle ou au moins avec un seul fabricant. Il faut le reconnaître aussi : l'utilité opérationnelle d'un avion (ses qualités requises) diffèrent grandement selon les pays. La plupart des pays (de la Finlande au Portugal, en passant par l'Allemagne ou la Belgique) ont surtout besoin d'une surveillance de leur sol, et éventuellement d'une participation à la police du ciel internationale (en opération multinationale ou sous couvert de l'OTAN). Alors que la France ou la Grande-Bretagne entendent garder une capacité d'intervention offensive. (Nicolas Gros-Verheyde) (1) Après avoir annulé un premier appel d'offres (suite à une votation populaire hostile), la Suisse a mis en concurrence, pour le renouvellement de sa flotte, cinq avions : le Gripen suédois, l'Eurofighter européen, le Rafale français, le F-18 Super Hornet et le F-35 américains. (2) Un mono-équipement qui ne concerne que l'aviation avec pilote (dite ‘habitée'). Pour les avions sans pilote (drones), la France est obligée de recourir à des matériels américains, faute d'avoir développé à temps ce type de matériel. https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2018/04/08/quand-ils-volent-les-europeens-adorent-acheter-americain-pourquoi/

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The Block III Super Hornet is getting a marginal increase in stealth capability, but if you're expecting the invisible aircraft of President Donald Trump's dreams, think again. Building a “stealthy” Super Hornet has been one of Trump's talking points since he was elected to the presidency. During a March trip to Boeing's plant in St. Louis, he claimed the U.S. military would buy Super Hornets with “the latest and the greatest stealth and a lot of things on that plane that people don't even know about.” Trump was referring to one of the Super Hornet's Block III upgrades slated to be incorporated on jets rolling off the production line in 2020: the application of radar absorbent materials or RAM, also known as stealth coating. But far from being “the latest and greatest,” the company has already used the exact same materials on the on the Block II Super Hornet to help decrease the chances of radar detection, said Dan Gillian, who manages Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler programs. Block III jets will get “a little more” of that coating applied to them, “and in a few different areas to buy a little bit more performance,” Gillian told Defense News in a March interview. All in all, those improvements will reduce the aircraft's radar cross section by about 10 percent, and with very low risk, he said. Although the general public tends to think of stealth like the invisibility cloak from Harry Potter or Wonder Woman's invisible plane, stealth is more of a continuum that is enabled and affected by many factors, experts told Defense News. “It's not a Romulan cloaking device,” said Richard Aboulafia, a Teal Group aviation analyst, referencing a technology from Star Trek that allowed spaceships to be invisible to the naked eye and electro-optical sensors. “It's about reducing the likelihood that an adversary will see you first. And seconds count, so if it buys a little extra time, then it helps.” The most important contributors to low observability are the aircraft's shape and the use of LO coatings, with airframe shape commonly seen as twice as important as the coatings, he said. Stealth fighters from the oddly angled F-117 to the F-22 and F-35, with their rounded edges, were all designed to bounce radar waves away from an aircraft, sometimes at the expense of aerodynamic performance or other attributes, said Brian Laslie, an Air Force historian and author. That being said, the Super Hornet, with it's external stores and pylons, is not going to replicate the low observability of the joint strike fighter, which was designed from the beginning with stealth in mind. “But just because it's not a pure LO aircraft doesn't mean that the designers weren't concerned with the radar return,” said Laslie, who added that it's “reasonable” to expect a 10 percent decrease to the aircraft's signature by augmenting Block III jets with additional RAM coating. Shining a spotlight on the Super Hornet's low observable attributes may have helped sell Trump on future orders, Aboulafia speculated. “It might be useful in the real world too, but in a much more marginal way,” he said. One of those benefits, according to Laslie, is that the LO performance upgrade could also enable the Navy to be more flexible in its mission planning. An aircraft can be more or less easily detected by radar depending on how it is positioned or the route used by the plane, so having more radar-absorbing materials on the Super Hornet could give the pilot more options. “I think what the Navy is doing is trying to maybe reduce enough of the cross section of the F-18 in high intensity combat scenarios,” Laslie said. “I don't think they're trying to make the F/A-18 a stealth aircraft,” he continued. “But if they can reduce the radar cross section enough that in certain scenarios it is more difficult to pick the Super Hornet up, that would be of benefit to the Navy.” While the president has done much to focus public attention on the Super Hornet's upcoming LO upgrade, the Block III actually offers a relatively modest increase in stealth compared to earlier concepts floated by Boeing. In 2013, when the company began evaluating how to attract future sales from the Navy as production slowed, it started promoting an “Advanced Super Hornet” configuration that would have improved the aircraft's signature by 50 percent. That version of the jet included structural enhancements and an enclosed weapons pod, but Boeing ultimately stepped away from that concept. “Those big compromises you have to make to get the higher levels of stealth like putting your weapons in a bay, we don't think that's a necessary part of the Block III story for the Super Hornet,” Gillian said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/09/how-stealthy-is-boeings-new-super-hornet/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration's review of America's missile defense capabilities is now expected to be released in May. The Missile Defense Review, a strategy document designed to take a holistic view of America's missile defense posture, was expected to be released in February. But finally, it appears the document is nearing completion. Pentagon spokesman Tom Crosson, in response to an inquiry by Defense News, said that the review is “currently in development” and that “we expect to release the review sometime next month.” The review is expected to be unclassified. The review is part of a series of big-picture strategic documents that started with the December release of the National Security Strategy, followed by the January release of the National Defense Strategy, and continued with February's Nuclear Posture Review. Notably, the review was originally positioned as a “ballistic missile defense review,” but the term ballistic has since been dropped by the Trump administration ― something Tom Karako, a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said was a wise choice. “The fact that the administration has dropped ‘ballistic' from the review's title indicates the document will probably employ a wider lens,” Karako wrote in a CSIS analysis Friday. “This could include a robust effort to better defend against Russian and Chinese cruise missiles, other maneuvering endo-atmospheric threats like hypersonic boost-glide vehicles (HGVs), and advanced short-range ballistic missiles.” Although no one has spelled out the direction of the review, there have been some hints given about where the administration intends to take missile defense. The FY19 budget request for the Missile Defense Agency, for instance, increased by $2 billion from previous funding levels, with an express focus on defeating a missile threat from North Korea. And Michael Griffin, the Pentagon's new head of research and engineering, has expressed support for investing in airborne missile defense capabilities. Jen Judson in Washington contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/04/06/missile-defense-review-expected-in-may

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India is seeking to buy around 110 fighter jets, the air force said in a request for information issued on Friday, marking the first step toward a long-delayed deal that could be worth more than $15 billion. Boeing (BA.N), Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), Saab (SAABb.ST) and Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA) are among the manufacturers expected to compete. The aircraft must be built largely in India as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's drive to build a domestic industrial base. The air force said in a notice that “85 percent will have to be made in India by a Strategic Partner/Indian Production Agency”. Lockheed has offered to move its F-16 production line in Fort Worth, Texas, to India and make it the only plant worldwide to produce the F-16 for not only India but also other countries, said Vivek Lall, vice president, strategy and business development at Lockheed Martin. Lockheed has teamed with India's Tata Advanced Systems to build the planes locally while Sweden's Saab has entered into a partnership with the Adani Group, a resources conglomerate. The other contenders have not announced their local partners. The tender will be open for makers of both single engine and twin-engined combat jets, in a widening of the field. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Russian aircraft are also potential contenders under the new requirements. A spokesman for Dassault Aviation which makes the twin-engine Rafale declined to comment. Earlier, the defense ministry had sought expressions of interest from single-engine manufacturers which effectively restricted the contest to Lockheed's F-16 and Saab's Gripen fighter jets. But in February the government asked the air force to open up the competition to twin-engined aircraft, in the latest flip-flop in policy that has delayed the acquisition process for years and left the air force short of hundreds of planes. India began its search for new planes for the Indian air force in 2003 to replace its Soviet-era MiG fighters. The request for information is open until July, the air force said. A request for proposal will then be issued followed by bid evaluations and contract negotiations. The process could take years, officials say. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-defence/india-opens-contest-to-supply-more-than-100-fighter-jets-idUSKCN1HD1UX

By: Mark Pomerleau Advancements in electronics and tactics by high-end adversaries are forcing the Army to change the way it revamps and optimizes its communications network against current and future threats. The problem: adversaries have become more proficient and precise in the sensing and jamming of signals. “What we're looking for in terms of resilience in the future is not only making individual links more anti-jam and resilient, resistant to threats, but also having the ability to use multiple paths if one goes down,” Joe Welch, chief engineer at Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications Tactical (C3T), told reporters during a network demo at Fort Myer in early March. “Your phones work this way between 4G and Wi-Fi and that's seamless to you. That's kind of the target of what we're intending to provide with next-generation transport for the Army's tactical network.” Members of industry are now looking to develop radios to these specifications outlined by the Army. “We have an extensive library of waveforms — 51, 52 waveforms that we can bring to bear — that we can say look we can use this waveform to give you more resilience with this capability,” Jeff Kroon, director of product management at Harris, told C4ISRNET during an interview at the AUSA Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in March. “Down the road, we need to talk about resilience and what's going on with the near-peer threats.” Next-generation systems, leaders believe, will be able to provide this necessary flexibility. “The radios that we're looking at buying now — the manpack and the two-channel leader radios — have shown themselves to be able to run a pretty wide range of waveforms and we think it postures us to run some changes to those waveforms in the future as we look at even more advanced waveforms,” Maj. Gen. David Bassett, program executive officer of C3T, told reporters at Fort Myer. While jammers have become more powerful and targeted in recent years, officials contend the entire spectrum can't be interrupted at once. The Army realizes links won't be jam-proof, Bassett told reporters at Fort Myer, so it is looking at how they can be either more jam-resistant or able to switch seamlessly across portions of the spectrum that are not being jammed. Kroon noted that one of the big developments within the radio community down the road will be radios that seamlessly switch frequencies or waveforms without direct user input. “I think, as we move forward, we'll start to have more cognitive capabilities that will allow [the radio] to adapt automatically, and keep the user focused on their own job and let the radio handle the rest,” he said. In addition to multiwaveform and a large range of spectrum coverage, Kroon said the Army is also really looking for multifunction capabilities within radios. Radios also have to have passive sensing capabilities to be able to understand the signals in the environment and provide some level of situational awareness of the spectrum environment. “They have to have visibility into what's going on around them ... not just for [electronic warfare] purposes but sometime just knowing what's going on in the spectrum around you as a planner is really important,” Kroon said. “What's actually going on out there, I don't know I was told this frequency was clear, how do I really know. Having a radio come back and say look what we hit ... it is actually very useful.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/global-force-symposium/2018/04/06/heres-what-the-army-wants-in-future-radios/