15 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Terrestre, C4ISR

Afghanistan deployment proves One World Terrain is more than a training tool

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army began building an entire virtual world a few years ago for its Synthetic Training Environment (STE) to bring accuracy and a real-life feel to training, but a deployment of One World Terrain in Afghanistan has proved it's not just a training tool, according to Maj. Gen. Maria Gervais, who is in charge of the service's STE development.

One World Terrain, or OWT, compiles realistic and, in some cases, extremely accurate virtual maps of territory all over the globe. The idea is to be able to click on any place on a virtual globe and go there. Soldiers can then train virtually in an exact environment in which they can expect to operate in reality.

“We're seeing now there are better uses for operational capability,” Gervais told Defense News in an Oct. 8 interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference. “And it's helping us inform how do we now expand this to meet training, operational and also targeting requirements.”

It all began with a unit that used OWT for training at the National Training Center on Fort Irwin, California, and saw value in it, Gervais said. When the unit deployed to Afghanistan, the soldiers asked to take the system — which included a drone and software — she said.

The unit was able to capture terrain for the purpose of mission-planning rehearsal and route planning. But the soldiers also used it to take an in-depth look at the forward-operating base to see how it was set up and analyze it for vulnerabilities.

“I will tell you from that usage, they figured out they had to make some changes,” Gervais said. “And then they went out and they started looking at other operating bases within their area. They expanded it.”

The system “immediately started proving its utility to them,” she said, “but from that unit from what they were able to do, we then were able to take the next unit that was coming in behind them and provide all that information to them and allow them to understand how One World Terrain could be used.”

The Army's 82nd Airborne Division also used the system prior to deploying to another theater. The division captured the terrain, using it for predeployment planning and mission rehearsals, including how and where to set up a base and where to position electronic warfare systems.

OWT also helped the 25th Infantry Division out of Hawaii prepare for a Joint Training Readiness Center rotation, and its members also plan to use it during the exercise.

These uses have led the Army to provide more drones and software for more units, Gervais said. Starting in December and January, the Army will begin fielding “a little bit more capability,” she added.

In March, the STE team went to Germany to observe an assured position, navigation and timing exercise that included a sensor-to-shooter, live-fire drill. The team worked with the 1st Cavalry Division's intelligence analysts and put OWT on the Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) system, which is an intelligence analysis platform.

“We showed them the capability, and what came out of there was pretty astounding,” Gervais said. With 3D terrain from OWT in the system, decisions could be made more quickly because there was no need to compare two different databases and reason against it, she said. That cut workload by about 60 percent, she added.

OWT was on a DCGS-A system at Project Convergence at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, this year, Gervais said, and it showed the realm of the possible from a targeting perspective.

While the STE had a limited scope during Project Convergence, “we're going to be more integrated in Project Convergence 21 next year,” she added, so that “everybody's kind of operating off the 3D terrain.”

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/10/14/afghanistan-deployment-proves-one-world-terrain-is-more-than-a-training-tool/

Sur le même sujet

  • Update: US Air Force seeks information on maritime strike weapon

    17 août 2020 | International, Naval

    Update: US Air Force seeks information on maritime strike weapon

    by Pat Host The US Air Force (USAF) is conducting market research into kinetic weapons capable of engaging and defeating maritime surface vessels, according to a 24 July request for information (RFI) posted on the federal contracting website beta.sam.gov. No further details were available with the public version of the RFI, which had a version classified secret by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) armament systems development division. USAF spokesperson Ilka Cole said on 10 August that while the specific capabilities sought are classified, the service seeks information on any kinetic weapon capable of engaging and defeating maritime surface vessels. An expert believes that this RFI is the USAF's effort to capture weapons compatible with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that are not the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) nor the Raytheon-Kongsberg Defense Systems Joint Strike Missile (JSM) air-launched anti-ship weapon being developed for the F-35. Bryan Clark, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, DC, told Janes on 31 July that the LRASM will probably not be compatible with the F-35 as the stakeholders have not been able to integrate it on to the aircraft for internal carriage due to the weapon's large size. Lockheed Martin spokesman Brett Ashworth said on 12 August that the company is investing in F-35 integration efforts for LRASM and the AGM-158B Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER). He said there is operator interest in both weapons and the company is working to ensure outstanding weapon stand-off and effects. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/update-us-air-force-seeks-information-on-maritime-strike-weapon

  • The Air Force Built a Robot to Wash F-16s

    14 mai 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    The Air Force Built a Robot to Wash F-16s

    The Air Force built a robot that can wash an F-16 fighter jet in just 1 hour. It typically takes a crew of four airmen up to 6 hours to do the same job.

  • Pentagon acquisition boss talks industry, mergers and coronavirus

    22 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

    Pentagon acquisition boss talks industry, mergers and coronavirus

    Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — A longtime industry executive, Ellen Lord was confirmed as the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment in August 2017. In that role, Lord — who is now the longest serving political appointee at the department from the Trump administration — oversees billions of dollars in weapons procurement and sustainment, while also overseeing the health of the defense industrial base, a particularly important role in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Lord was a keynote speaker at this year's Defense News Conference, where she touched on a number of issues affecting the Department of Defense. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. We're about six months after COVID-19 first hit the defense industry. How do you judge the health of the defense industrial base? We use the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency to track about 22,000 key companies that the department works with. And going back over the last six months, we did have hundreds of companies shut down, but now we're down to only about 30. So that's very, very good news. We monitor them on a daily basis; we look at on-time deliveries, deliveries missed and, most importantly, we listen to what the issues are, really leveraging the industry associations to do a lot of listening. What we are looking for is whether or not we're maintaining war-fighter readiness for our production programs, and then relative to modernization, whether we are hitting key milestones relative to development programs. We have seen some slowdowns. We are carefully monitoring, using monthly metrics, where we are. That's something that I'm actually extremely proud of the team over the last few years — we have developed a very data-driven way of doing business. The Pentagon is seeking billions of dollars from Congress to help fund reimbursements for the defense industry's pandemic-related costs. But we've heard criticism of this from a number of sectors, with some saying financial reports last quarter were not so bad. Why is that funding needed, and why now? All the [quarterly] reports that have come out in large part don't reflect the hits that were taken by business. I would contend that most of the effects of COVID-19 haven't yet been seen because most companies gave their employees time off, they stretched out production, paid a lot of people for working 100 percent when perhaps they were only getting 50 percent of the hours in and so forth. So I think the system has absorbed it up to this point in time. Now when we get to the point where we're having payments and incentive fees and award fees earned, and if we haven't done the deliveries, that's where you're going to see the hit. So I believe there's a bit of a delayed response. We want to make sure that we have a one-time accounting for these major COVID hits — very, very well defined in terms of a period of time, March 15-Sept. 15, that we take a very, very data driven approach [saying]: “Send us a proposal showing what the impact was; we will assess them all at once and get back.” However, we can't do that at this point in time because we have an authorization through Section 3610 [of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act] and so forth, but we don't have an appropriation. We believe we need that appropriation to maintain readiness because if we do not get that, what we are going to find is we are not going to get the number of units delivered, we are not going to maintain war-fighter readiness, we're not going to move forward in modernization. We would like to take the one-time hit and then see where we go from there. Assuming you get the appropriation, much money is needed? When will industry see it? We think it's somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion. We think it would take five to six months because once we got an appropriation, we would go out for a request for proposals, and the larger companies are going to have to flow down those RFPs through their supply chain, gather the data — because again, this has to be a very data-driven drill. So we would get all of that back; we think that would take two to three months. Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once. It isn't going to be a first-in, first-out [situation], and we have to rationalize using the rules we've put in place, what would be reimbursable and what's not. So overall we think five to six months, in terms of a process. We're at about the two-year mark from the executive order 13806 study, which assessed the health of the defense industrial base and included some dire warnings about the supply chain. How has work on fixing those issues gone? We had several areas that we pointed out were problematic, that we were concerned that the U.S. had too great of a dependency on non-friendly nations and that we just didn't have the security and resiliency that we were looking for. In fiscal 2019, we actually had 14 presidential determinations, which is the process you go through to actually say: “Yes, these are areas that are worthy of looking at.” Then we go to get the appropriation to be able to use [the Defense Production Act's Title III authorities]. A number of the areas we looked at were small unmanned aerial systems, rare earth [minerals], that type of thing. When COVID-19 hit, it shone a spotlight on the concern we had with this fragility and helped us tell the story. Because of another executive order coming in declaring a federal emergency, we no longer had to go through the presidential determination route, which is a bit time consuming, to identify areas where we needed to invest. Then [with the pandemic] we had new areas bubble up, probably the most significant of which was aviation propulsion, where we have a number of our key suppliers who are extremely dependent on commercial aviation that was grinding almost to a halt for a while — huge impacts there. So what we did was we were now able to move a little bit more quickly, which is always helpful. And we made a number of awards to aviation companies that literally kept those companies in business, which allowed us to continue to support the war fighter. COVID-19 has helped us accelerate some of those areas. Others are perhaps not getting as much attention as they were pre-COVID-19, looking at our defense industrial base for nuclear modernization for instance, also for hypersonics. But overall, the team is working very hard, and we have put out almost a billion dollars in DPA Title III over the last six months. It sounds like the pandemic may have been beneficial in addressing these long-term issues. What it did was allow us to really put speed in the system, peel away all of what I would call the non-value-added bureaucracy. COVID-19 gave us a burning platform to really demonstrate we could be very responsible in terms of taxpayer dollars, very responsible in terms of security of the war fighter, but move at the speed of relevance to get things done. So I don't want to backslide there. And I want to make sure we really take advantage of all of that. Companies are concerned about being in compliance with the Section 889 rules, which prohibit the government from buying a system that might have Chinese equipment in it from the telecommunications supply chain. Are more waivers for companies possible? We are incredibly supportive of making sure that we don't have Chinese technology in a lot of our telecom systems, which has proven to be a problem in terms of exfiltration of data. So what we did is we got a waiver from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] for noncritical weapon systems. We continue to discuss an extension beyond September of that with them. We are getting waivers on a case-by-case basis, we will look at those. However, we are encouraging industry and we are very, very pleased at how we see industry still stepping up to really get these systems out of their supply chains. So it will be by exception that we will do waivers, and we are looking to really have a clean path through everything. There have been significant mergers and acquisitions during your tenure at the Pentagon. Are you seeing a downside for the department, given the desire for more competition on programs? I actually put a process in place early on, when we are notified of M&A deals, that we go out very formally to all the services and agencies and ask for objective evidence as to whether or not these mergers or acquisitions will constrain competition in any way. We then work very, very closely with either [the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department] on those deals to make sure there are divestitures if needed. Where I'm really focused, and the team is focused, is really getting the small companies going. That's where the predominance of our innovation comes from. That's what bubbles up to these larger companies. So we are holding all kinds of webinars and meetings connecting not only our traditional defense industrial base, small company partners, but nontraditional [firms] with our DoD efforts. We're partnering with the services to get more of that activity. So we want that diverse group coming in, and I'm really excited about what I see coming up through. That doesn't sound like you have many concerns about what you've seen. We watch very carefully. And at this point, we think we've made some smart divestitures on some of those. And we like competition. It's our friend. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2020/09/21/pentagon-acquisition-boss-talks-industry-mergers-and-coronavirus/

Toutes les nouvelles