29 août 2024 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité
U.S. Agencies Warn of Iranian Hacking Group's Ongoing Ransomware Attacks
U.S. agencies warn of Iranian hackers targeting key sectors with ransomware, exploiting security flaws to breach networks.
15 octobre 2019 | International, Aérospatial
Army-developed multimission launcher ‘off the table’
By: Jen Judson
WASHINGTON — The Army spent years internally developing its own multimission launcher for the Indirect Fires Protection Capability program — designed to counter threats like rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft systems. But that grand plan is now officially off the table.
The service has purchased two Rafael-made Iron Dome systems as an interim solution to get after the cruise missile defense capability gap, but it's taken a step back to rethink its enduring IFPC program strategy.
While much is up in the air, it's certain that the launcher that will ultimately be part of the IFPC program won't be the MML.
“It'll be something different that we will develop,” Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of the Army's air-and-missile defense modernization, told Defense News at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference.
As of 2016, the Army had spent $119 million to build MML prototypes, which included owning the technical data rights. The cost of developing the system outside of the Army would have been about three times as much according to the service at the time.
Over the course of its development, the launcher was able to defeat a cruise missile target and an unmanned aircraft system using an AIM-9X missile at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and fired the Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) and Tamir missiles as well.
The U.S. Army had awarded three $2.6 million contracts in the summer of 2018 for the first phase of a program to find a second interceptor — the Expanded Mission Area Missile (EMAM) — for the MML. Also already selected was the first interceptor for the launcher, the Sidewinder.
Lockheed Martin's MHTK missile and two missiles from Raytheon were chosen to be qualified for the launcher: Sky Hunter, the U.S. version of the Iron Dome missile Tamir; and the Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative missile.
The effort to qualify the MHTK has been paused, Scott Arnold, Lockheed Martin's vice president and deputy of integrated air-and-missile defense with the company's Missiles and Fire Control business, said at AUSA.
The company did not have an intercept test, but was able to move the MHTK missile through some testing prior to the Army's decision to pause the program.
The Army may take technologies developed as part of the MML effort and spiral them into a future launcher, “but there were a lot of things, with all the right reasons, that launcher turned out the way it did,” Gibson said. An assessment of the launcher determined it was not sufficient for an enduring capability, he added.
“All the variables of when you define a new piece of hardware matter and, for air defense, it really comes down to angles you launch things at, whether it's vertical or whether it's horizontal, and the applicability of how many different interceptors potentially you can put in,” Gibson said. “Those are all lessons learned from MML and it matters on the threat set.”
The one-star added that he is confident the Army is capable of developing something appropriate on the right timeline when it comes to a launcher for the enduring IFPC plan.
And while the service doesn't want to buy beyond the two batteries of Iron Dome already purchased, the Army is considering the feasibility of taking its launcher and missiles for the future IFPC program.
The Army has until the end of 2023 to field an initial enduring capability or, by law, will have to buy more interim Iron Dome systems.
Sur le même sujet
-
-
18 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
Contracts for February 17, 2021
Today
-
9 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR
Wanted: Virtual reality headsets that aren’t made in China
By: Valerie Insinna ORLANDO, Fla. — The U.S. Air Force wants to tap into the augmented and virtual reality technologies that are proliferating in the commercial market, but the service has run into a problem: Many have parts from China, limiting their ability to be used by the U.S. military in operational environments. “Can we not have an AR [augmented reality] solution that's made in China? I don't think that's good for us,” Col. Gerard Ryan, chief of the Air Force's operational training infrastructure division, said during a panel discussion Tuesday at the Interservice/Industry, Training, Simulation and Education Conference. “I don't think the security policy is going to pass. And I say that sarcastically, but it's true. If we're going to use a gaming engine, let's make sure it's not made by a foreign country that we don't like,” he added. The Air Force is dipping its toes into using virtual reality through its Pilot Training Next program, which seeks to get airmen through basic pilot training more quickly and cheaply. While the PTN program is currently considered an experiment, with only a handful of airmen participating at any given time, the Air Force has already shown it may be able to shave months off the existing training timeline by supplementing live flights spent in the T-6 trainer with virtual ones using Vive virtual reality headsets and flight simulation software. An unclassified environment like basic pilot training is a perfect place for the Air Force to use the augmented and virtual reality devices currently on the market. But for such products to ever see use by fighter and bomber pilots — or any operator that deals with secure information — the service must be sure that no part of the device is made by China, or any other foreign entity that could insert technology that allows for data collection. The Air Force has begun talking to companies about its concerns, Ryan said. The hope is those firms can examine their supply chains and shift away from buying Chinese components. “I've talked to some people in industry. A smaller company has said they've found a set of goggles that's American-made. I'm like: ‘Great, you're the first person to tell me that. The only one so far, too,' ” Ryan said. Another challenge is connecting commercial devices in a classified environment, where Bluetooth and Wi-Fi use may be restricted. “I've talked to one company that has figured [it] out. They have a system where it's a backpack laptop. So it's a direct connect to the goggles,” Ryan said. “Unfortunately it's more expensive, probably, to do that. It's probably more challenging to find the parts.” When augmented or virtual reality systems can be brought into classified environments, they may not be flexible enough for quick reconfiguration to complement different training scenarios, said Col. David Nyikos, Air Combat Command's deputy director of operations. “AR/VR is super cool,” he said during the panel. “But now you need it to evolve, you need it to reprogram to adapt to whatever mission rehearsal you're coming up with. Maybe tonight you're going to go out with guys from AFSOC [Air Force Special Operations Command] working with some Norwegian SOF [special operations forces], working with some Afghans. You've got to be able to train together to rehearse that. We don't have that right now.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/itsec/2019/12/06/wanted-virtual-reality-headsets-that-arent-made-in-china