1 avril 2020 | International, Naval

Amentum Awarded $87 Million Navy Contract for Systems Engineering Support

Germantown, Md.; March 26, 2020 – Amentum, a leading contractor to U.S. federal and allied governments, has been awarded a new contract by Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division worth up to $87 million.

Under the contract, Amentum will provide systems engineering support to naval weapons systems, weapon control systems, and warfare systems for ballistic missile and guided missile submarines and surface ships, including Aegis, Ship Self-Defense System, DDG-1000 Guided Missile Destroyers, Guided Missile Frigates, and U.S. Coast Guard cutters. The cost-plus-fixed-fee contract has one base year and four one-year option periods.

“We have been a strategic partner to the Navy for more than 40 years providing systems engineering support at Dahlgren,” said John Vollmer, Chief Executive Officer of Amentum. “Many of our people there have decades of engineering and operational experience in the Strategic Systems Program Office and on Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile programs. Our unique experience combined with our engineering and software tools allows us to offer real-world solutions to complex and ever-changing combat system and fleet challenges.”

Work under the contract will primarily be performed at Dahlgren, Va.; Dam Neck, Va.; Washington Navy Yard; and Pittsfield, Mass.

###

About Amentum
Amentum is a premier global technical and engineering services partner supporting critical programs of national significance across defense, security, intelligence, energy, and environment. We draw from a century-old heritage of operational excellence, mission focus, and successful execution underpinned by a strong culture of safety and ethics. Headquartered in Germantown, Md., we employ more than 20,000 people in 48 states and 28 foreign countries and territories. Visit us at amentum.com to explore how we deliver excellence for our customers' most vital missions.

Contacts:
For Amentum:
Christine Fuentes
+1 (540) 219-5636
christine.fuentes@amentum.com
Follow @Amentum_corp on Twitter

View source version on Amentum: https://www.amentum.com/2020/03/26/amentum-awarded-87-million-navy-contract-for-systems-engineering-support/

Sur le même sujet

  • A Report from NATO's Front Lines

    11 juin 2019 | International, Sécurité, Autre défense

    A Report from NATO's Front Lines

    by Michael O'Hanlon All is busy on NATO's eastern front. That was our main conclusion during a recent study delegation to Lithuania sponsored by the Lithuanian Ministry of National Defense and organized by the Atlantic Council. A lot is happening on the defense preparation front, and the overall security situation is improving considerably compared with a few years ago. But problems remain and work still has to be done, if deterrence and stability are to be ensured, and a potentially devastating war with Russia prevented. As many people will recall, the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with a combined population of some six million and combined military strength of some thirty thousand active-duty troops, joined NATO in 2004. All three border Russia, though in the case of Lithuania, that border is in the western part of the country (near Russia's Kaliningrad pocket). Lithuania's eastern frontier is shared with Belarus, a close ally of Moscow, at Vladimir Putin's insistence. Its southern border touches Poland, along the famed “Suwalki gap,” the narrow land corridor through which NATO would likely send most of its tens of thousands of reinforcements during any major crisis or conflict with Russia over the Baltics. All three Baltic states, plus Poland, are now among the seven of NATO's twenty-nine members that meet their obligations to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on their militaries, however imperfect a metric of burden-sharing that formal NATO requirement may be. In Lithuania's case, this represents a tripling of military spending since 2013. Give President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama some of the credit for recent increases if you wish. But give the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Poles the majority of the credit—with a nod, of course, to Vladimir Putin, who has done more to unify and motivate eastern Europeans' security efforts than anyone else this century. Since 2014, when Russia seized Crimea in Ukraine and stoked a conflict in Ukraine's east that continues to this day, NATO has been gradually fortifying its eastern flank, in the Baltic states and Poland. It now has a multinational battalion-size battlegroup (of about one thousand soldiers) in each of the three Baltic states, plus a larger U.S. brigade-sized presence in Poland (with occasional, but intermittent, American deployments into the Baltic states for exercising and signaling resolve). The battalion in Lithuania is backstopped by Germany, with additional major contributions from the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. These battalions are collectively described as the “enhanced forward presence” or eFP program, following NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve; the U.S. element is often described as the European deterrence initiative. Adding in those rotational deployments, there are some thirty-five thousand total NATO troops in the Baltics, with only a smattering of Americans on most days. Russia has well over one hundred thousand of its own recently-improved forces just across the border and could probably muster closer to two hundred thousand with little effort under the guise of an exercise, if it wished. The Lithuanians' recent defense efforts need to be put in perspective. The nation is resolute, with 80 percent supporting NATO forces deployed to its territory and all of the recent major presidential candidates—and eventual winner—favoring the ongoing defense buildup. But it does not seem paranoid, or on serious edge, even as the officials we saw were clear about the challenge and legitimately focused on progress. While a military budget at 2 percent of GDP, headed towards 2.5 percent, is an impressive defense effort, it does not reflect the dire sense of urgency of a society expecting imminent war. After all, the United States and Russia each spend more than 3 percent of GDP on their armed forces; in fact, NATO aimed for a 3 percent minimum during the Cold War, when the United States typically spent upwards of 5 percent of GDP on its military. And for all the enhancements to its two main combat brigades, Lithuania has restrained from fortifying the eastern and western flanks of the country with smart minefields or other barriers to invasion. For its part, NATO more generally has stationed the eFP forces but has not tied them into a truly integrated combat force; nor has it deployed many helicopters or air defense systems into the Baltic states. It certainly has not prestationed the seven brigades of capability that a 2016 RAND Corporation simulation estimated as necessary to constitute a viable forward defense position. The current level of effort, vigilant but tempered, strikes us as roughly appropriate to the circumstances at hand. While there are still conflict scenarios that can be imagined, it is hard to think that President Putin believes he could really get away with naked aggression against any NATO member, including those in the Baltic region. Even if NATO does not have an adequate forward defense in place against hypothetical Russian aggression, it does have a rather robust forward tripwire, combined with increasingly credible ways of rapidly reinforcing that tripwire in a crisis. Still, there are three additional lines of effort that Washington and other NATO capitals should pursue in the interest of greater deterrence, stability, and predictability in eastern Europe. First, as a recent Atlantic Council report, “Permanent Deterrence,” underscored, NATO should strengthen key pieces of its modest military presence in Poland and the Baltic states. Much of this can happen in the Polish/American sector, but elements of it should extend to the Baltics as well. It makes good sense to combine greater combat engineering capability for military mobility, so as to better move reinforcements into the east in the face of possible Russian opposition, together with plugging gaps in areas such as combat aviation and air defense, and pre-stocking certain equipment. Moscow may complain, but it cannot credibly view such additions as major NATO additions or provocations, especially because they are modest, and because Russian actions have necessitated them. Second, nonmilitary elements of NATO resoluteness need to be strengthened, too. As discussed in The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War over Small Stakes, there are various types of very small Russian probing attacks that could leave NATO flummoxed and paralyzed over how to respond. These attacks might not reach the threshold where all alliance members would wish to invoke NATO's Article V mutual-defense clause and send military forces in response, yet they could be too serious to ignore. NATO should conceptualize such scenarios and exercise crisis decisionmaking in advance while honing various economic and diplomatic approaches to complement any military responses. NATO also needs to develop more contingency plans for economic warfare with Russia that would provide alternative energy sources in a crisis. Lithuania's recent development of a liquefied natural gas terminal is exemplary in this regard. Third, while projecting resolve vis-à-vis Moscow, including retention of the EU and U.S. sanctions that have been imposed on Russia in recent years, NATO needs to rethink its broader strategy towards Russia. This strategy should include options for bettering relations in a post–Putin Russia. Various types of security architectures and arrangements should be explored and debated. For now, with a new president in Kiev, a concerted effort to help Ukraine reform its economy and further weed out corruption makes eminent sense. Things are moving in the right direction in eastern Europe, but there is considerable work left to be done. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the new book, The Senkaku Paradox; Christopher Skaluba is the director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/report-natos-front-lines-62067

  • Pandemic Hits Navy’s New Nuke Submarine Program

    2 juin 2020 | International, Naval

    Pandemic Hits Navy’s New Nuke Submarine Program

    Work on the missile tubes for the Navy's part of the nation's nuclear triad is months behind schedule after Babcock was smacked hard by the pandemic. By PAUL MCLEARYon June 01, 2020 at 5:23 PM WASHINGTON: The Navy's top priority — its new nuclear-powered Columbia-class submarine — has been struck by the COVID-19 virus. Workers' absences at a critical supplier have delayed construction and welding of the boat's missile tubes by several months a senior Navy official said today, and the service is scrambling to make that time up. While the service and its contractors are looking for ways to reclaim that time, the situation is something that Navy and Pentagon officials have most feared. Large-scale work on the first of the twelve planned Columbia submarines is slated to kick off in 2021, with deliveries starting in 2030 — just in time to begin replacing the Cold War-era Ohio-class subs as the Navy's leg of the nation's nuclear triad. The subs will carry 70 percent of the warheads allowed by the New Start treaty with Russia. Head of the Columbia program, Rear Adm. Scott Pappano, said during a video conference sponsored by the Advanced Nuclear Weapons Alliance today that the work experienced “a hiccup” earlier this year when less than 30 percent of workers at UK-based Babcock Marine showed up for work during the height of the COVID outbreak, leading to setbacks in the work schedule. “There was an interruption in our ability to do work,” Pappano said, calling the delay of several months a “worst case” scenario that would stick if no actions were taken to speed up work going forward. “We're analyzing the plan right now,” he added. “Prioritizing what tubes go where and then coming up with mid-term and long-term recovery plans to go deal with that.” Pappano said the Navy and industry may hire more workers and bring in more vendors to buy that time back. The missile tubes have already caused the service some pain. In 2018, contractor BWX, contracted to deliver three tubes to Electric Boat, discovered problems before the tubes were delivered, eventually paying $27 million to fix the problems. The company later said it is considering getting out of the missile tube business with the Navy, leaving BAE Systems as the only US-based company capable of doing the work. The Navy is walking a tightrope on its Virginia and Columbia programs, and any slip on one program will affect the other. The two share the same missile tube design, which will also be fitted onto the UK's forthcoming Dreadnaught class of submarines. “One of the biggest risks to Columbia is if Virginia gets out of its cadence,” James Geurts, the Navy's acquisition chief, told reporters late last year. Once the Columbia subs begin rolling out of Electric Boat's shipyard, the Navy will have to produce one Columbia and two Virginias per year, a pace of submarine building the service has not seen in decades. But Columbia will remain the Navy's top focus. Geurts said he's structured both programs in a way that the shared supplier base is aware of what's needed well in advance, but “if not, we can back off a little to make sure Columbia is successful.” Despite the setback, Babcock's workforce has recovered in recent weeks, “and essentially they're above 90% capacity” on the production line, Pappano said. “So my assessment is they're essentially back up — or close to it — not where they were before” the virus struck. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/covid-19-hits-navys-newest-nuke-submarine-program/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2006.02.20&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

  • Could soldiers silently communicate using brain signals in the future?

    26 novembre 2020 | International, C4ISR

    Could soldiers silently communicate using brain signals in the future?

    Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — A breakthrough in decoding brain signals could be the first step toward a future where soldiers silently communicate during operations. New research funded by the U.S. Army Research Office successfully separated brain signals that influence action or behavior from signals that do not. Using an algorithm and complex mathematics, the team was able to identify which brain signals were directing motion, or behavior-relevant signals, and then remove those signals from the other brain signals — behavior-irrelevant ones. “Here we're not only measuring signals, but we're interpreting them,” said Hamid Krim, a program manager for the Army Research Office. The service wants to get to the point where the machine can provide feedback to soldier's brains to allow them to take corrective action before something takes place, a capability that could protect the health of a war fighter. Krim pointed to stress and fatigue signals that the brain gives out before someone actually realizes they are stressed or tired, thus letting troops know when they should take a break. The only limit to the possibilities is the imagination, he said. Another potential future use is silent communication, Krim said. Researchers could build on the research to allow the brain and computers to communicate so soldiers can silently talk via a computer in the field. “In a theater, you can have two people talking to each other without ... even whispering a word,” Krim said. “So you and I are out there in the theater and we have to ... talk about something that we're confronting. I basically talked to my computer — your computer can be in your pocket, it can be your mobile phone or whatever — and that computer talks to ... your teammate's computer. And then his or her computer is going to talk to your teammate.” In the experiment, the researchers monitored the brain signals from a monkey reaching for a ball over and over again in order to separate brain signals. But more work is to be done, as any sort of battle-ready machine-human interface using brain signals is likely decades away, Krim said. What's next? Researchers will now try to identify other signals outside of motion signals. “You can read anything you want; doesn't mean that you understand it,” Krim said. “The next step after that is to be able to understand it. The next step after that is to break it down into into words so that ... you can synthesize in a sense, like you learn your vocabulary and your alphabet, then you are able to compose. “At the end of the day, that is the original intent mainly: to have the computer actually being in a full duplex communication mode with the brain.” The Army Research Office-backed program was led by researchers at the University of Southern California, with additional U.S. partners at the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; Duke University; and New York University. The program also involved several universities in the United Kingdom, including Essex, Oxford and Imperial College. The Army is providing up to $6.25 million in funding over five years. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/11/25/could-soldiers-silently-communicate-using-brain-signals-in-the-future/

Toutes les nouvelles