4 questions with NATO on its unmanned tech test

Sur le même sujet

• 

  7 octobre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - October 04, 2019

  NAVY United Technologies Corp., East Hartford, Connecticut, is awarded a $325,185,212 cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-price-incentive-firm contract to provide material and support equipment for depot maintenance facilities, non-recurring sustainment activities, supplies, services and planning for depot activations as well as two F135 full-scale high fidelity mockup engines and four modules for test cells in support of the F-35 Lightning II Program. Work will be performed in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (43.75%); East Hartford, Connecticut (20%); Windsor, Connecticut (3.5%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (3.25%); Fairbanks, Arkansas (3%); Miramar, Florida (2.25%); Indianapolis, Indiana (1.5%); various locations within the continental United States (2.75%) and various locations outside the continental United States (20%), and is expected to be completed in January 2023. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy), non-Department of Defense (DoD) participant and foreign military sales (FMS) funds in the amount of $309,357,445 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($142,457,377; 44%), Marine Corps ($50,633,162; 16%), Navy ($36,962,858; 11%); non-DoD participants ($86,780,595; 27 %) and FMS ($8,321,220; 2 %). This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-20-C-0005). Lockheed Martin, Rotary and Mission Systems, Baltimore, Maryland, is awarded a $75,742,842 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously-awarded contract (N00024-18-C-2300) to exercise options for the accomplishment of class services for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. This option exercise is for class services for the LCS program. Lockheed Martin, Rotary and Mission Systems will provide expert design, planning and material support services for LCS-class ship construction. Work will be performed in Hampton, Virginia (31%); Moorestown, New Jersey (27%); Washington, District of Columbia (22%); and Marinette, Wisconsin (20%), and is expected to be completed by October 2020. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $7,138,265 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. ARMY BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., York, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $48,000,000 modification (P00033) to contract W56HZV-17-C-0001 for long lead material associated with the build of the Self Propelled Howitzer, Carrier-Ammunition Tracked vehicle. Work will be performed in York, Maine, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 31, 2023. Fiscal 2019 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $48,000,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/1981471/source/GovDelivery/

• 

  31 janvier 2019 | International, Naval

  The US Navy is planning for its new frigate to be a workhorse

  WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is looking to get a lot of underway time out of its new frigate and is eyeing a crewing model that swaps out teams of sailors to maximize the operational time for each hull. The so-called blue-gold crewing model effectively creates two crews for each ship of the class. The blue crew and gold crew switch out to keep the ships at sea for as long as possible without breaking the sailors and their families. It's the model the Navy has used for years on the ballistic missile submarines and is employing on the littoral combat ships, but now the model is likely to extend to the LCS successor, said Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, the Chief of Naval Operations' surface warfare director. “We're looking at the blue-gold construct on FFG(X). We're planning on it, which gives us a larger operational availability – it should double it,” Boxall told Defense News in an interview late last year. The use of blue-gold crewing hints at how the Navy is viewing its new frigate: as a ship that can carry out a a broad range of tasks that have consumed the operational time of larger combatants. That includes exercises with allies and freedom of navigation operations to counter-piracy and routine presence missions that don't require an Arleigh Burke destroyer to be successful but are time-intensive. The Navy has bemoaned the lack of a small surface combatant that can hold down low-end missions but still contribute in a high-end fight, which has been the impetus behind the whole FFG(X) program. Even though the crews will catch a break in the blue-gold construct, off-hull crews won't be kicking back during their shore rotation, Boxall said. The surface force has been investing in higher-end training facilities in fleet concentration areas in an effort to increase the proficiency of its watch teams. Crews on shore will be going through those trainers, he said. “So, these ships are going to be out there half the time while the [off-hull] crews are back training in higher-fidelity training environments,” Boxall explained. “And what [commanding officers] will tell you is that as we get to higher and higher fidelity training, time to train becomes equally as valuable. “So, in an increasingly complex environment, it's just intuitive that that you have to have time to train. We think Blue-Gold makes sense for those reasons on the frigate.” Lessons from LCS Getting more simulator time for surface sailors has been an initiative championed by the Navy's top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Rich Brown. It's an off-shoot from lessons-learned from FFG(X)'s predecessor, the LCS, which has extremely high-fidelity simulator trainers for its crews before they take over their assigned hulls. One thing the surface force has been intrigued to see has been the high quality of the officers that come up through the LCS program, something the Navy in part attributes to the trainers, Boxall said, and the SWOs want to replicate that for the FFG(X). “One really interesting side-note with LCS has been the quality of the training,” Boxall said. “As we went back and looked at the lessons learned from McCain and Fitzgerald, we're trying to apply some of the good things about LCS to that. “Those officers, because they are smaller ships they get a lot more water under the keel. And they're faster ships so they are getting that water under the keel in a faster-moving environment. So we're creating a generation of officers who are getting tougher navigation environments thrown at them more quickly, and we're also getting the quality and fidelity of their trainers.” This has meant that LCS officers more-than stack up to their peers from larger, more advanced ships, he added. “What we're seeing is they are doing very, very well against their contemporaries coming off the bigger ships,” Boxall said. “Why is that happening? It's fairly logical: More stick time, better fidelity trainers and more time in the trainers.” Ownership The littoral combat ship adopted the Blue-Gold crewing model after a series of high-profile breakdowns, some caused by crew errors. The original model was to have three crews for two hulls, a rotational model that the Navy worried was taking away from the sense of ownership for a single, specific hull that permanently attached crews might have to a greater degree. The program was reorganized to a Blue-Gold model, which required hundreds of new billets for the LCS program, under then-head of Naval Surface Forces Pacific, Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden. Expanding Blue-Gold to the FFG(X) would further spread the model inside the surface warfare community. Both minesweepers and patrol craft, two other workhorse platforms in the surface community, operate under a Blue-Gold crewing model as well. However, it may not be a model that the Navy will pursue on the large surface combatant now in development. That ship may be better with a lower operational tempo, Boxall said. “We'll look and see if that makes sense on the large surface combatant or not,” he said. “Maybe those are better ships to keep as a surge force, maybe they're fine operating on a lower rotational model.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/01/30/the-us-navy-is-planning-for-its-new-frigate-to-be-a-workhorse/

• 

  17 février 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Plus forte hausse depuis dix ans pour les dépenses militaires mondiales

  (Munich) Les dépenses militaires mondiales ont connu l'an dernier leur hausse la plus élevée depuis dix ans, sur fond de rivalités croissantes et de ce que le chef de l'État allemand a qualifié de « dynamique destructrice » au plan mondial. La progression a atteint au total 4 %, selon le rapport annuel de l'institut IISS publié vendredi peu avant le début de la Conférence sur la sécurité de Munich. En ouverture de cette grand-messe annuelle internationale sur les questions de défense, le président allemand Frank-Walter Steinmeier a planté le décor. « Année après année, nous nous éloignons de l'objectif d'une coopération internationale visant à créer un monde pacifique », a-t-il regretté. La « compétition des grandes puissances » gagne « toute la planète », a dit le président allemand, en critiquant l'égoïsme national répandu à ses yeux par les États-Unis de Donald Trump qui refusent « l'idée même d'une communauté internationale » . «Course aux armements» « Le monde ne peut pas se permettre une course aux armements », lui a fait écho la présidente démocrate de la Chambre des représentants, Nancy Pelosi, parlant d'« érosion préoccupante des cadres pour le contrôle qui ont rendu le monde sûr pendant des décennies ». Les dépenses militaires « ont augmenté avec la sortie des économies de la crise financière (de 2008) et sous l'effet d'une perception accrue des menaces », a relevé le directeur général de l'Institut international d'études stratégiques (IISS, International Institute for Strategic Studies). La mort du traité FNI sur les forces nucléaires intermédiaires (portée de 500 à 5500 km) en 2019 et l'extinction potentielle du traité New Start sur les armes nucléaires intercontinentales en 2021 bouscule l'ordre international post-Guerre froide, tout comme la montée en puissance de la Chine ainsi qu'une série de crises régionales, de l'Ukraine à la Libye. Dans un tel contexte, les deux plus gros budgets militaires mondiaux, ceux des États-Unis (685 milliards de dollars) et de la Chine (181 milliards), poursuivent leur croissance exponentielle, avec une hausse de 6,6 % dans les deux pays en 2019 par rapport à 2018. Les dépenses américaines ont augmenté à elles seules de 53,4 milliards de dollars l'an dernier, soit l'équivalent du septième budget mondial de la défense, après ceux de l'Arabie saoudite (3e), de la Russie (4e), mais avant ceux de la France (8e). « En Europe, les inquiétudes liées à la Russie continuent d'alimenter la croissance des dépenses avec une hausse de 4,2 % par rapport à 2018 », pointe également John Chipman. L'accroissement massif des capacités militaires chinoises est une source majeure d'inquiétude aux États-Unis comme auprès de leurs partenaires en Asie-Pacifique. La Chine s'est aussi lancée, comme la Russie, dans le développement d'armes hypersoniques susceptibles de déjouer les défenses antimissiles adverses, met en garde l'institut londonien. L'armée russe a annoncé en décembre la mise en service de ses premiers missiles hypersoniques Avangard, l'une des nouvelles armes vantées par le président Vladimir Poutine comme « invincibles » et « indétectables ». Europe bousculée En Europe, les interrogations grandissent devant le risque de désengagement des États-Unis, de plus en plus centrés sur l'Asie-Pacifique, même si ces derniers ont renforcé pour l'heure leur présence militaire dans l'est du continent face à la Russie, tout comme dans le Golfe face aux menaces iraniennes. Les pays membres de l'OTAN, Allemagne en tête, sont aussi budgétairement sous la pression du président américain Donald Trump qui leur réclame un effort plus massif pour arriver à l'objectif de dépenses égales à 2 % du PIB. Après Donald Trump en 2018, le président français Emmanuel Macron a en outre « semblé jeter le doute » à son tour sur l'engagement de solidarité collective au sein de l'Alliance en cas d'agression de l'un de ses membres, rappelle l'ISS. Il a aussi ébranlé ses partenaires en estimant l'OTAN en état de « mort cérébrale ». « Deux des trois puissances nucléaires de l'Alliance (la troisième étant le Royaume-Uni) ont ainsi semé l'incertitude sur cette question clé de la sécurité collective », souligne John Chipman. https://www.lapresse.ca/international/202002/14/01-5261007-plus-forte-hausse-depuis-dix-ans-pour-les-depenses-militaires-mondiales.php