30 mars 2022 | International, Aérospatial
Turkish firm says it has made a supersonic target drone
The 3-meter-long drone, now undergoing flight testing, features a mini-turbojet engine that helps it fly at least as fast as Mach 1.
13 juillet 2020 | International, Terrestre
As Defender 2020 drill winds down, US Army plans for 2021 edition
By: Aaron Mehta
WASHINGTON — As the last portions of the altered Defender 2020 exercise kick into gear, the U.S. Army is beginning to plan its 2021 edition, a top general said Thursday.
Speaking at a Defense News virtual panel on trans-Atlantic alliances Brig. Gen. Sean Bernabe, deputy commander of U.S. Army Europe, expressed confidence that Defender 2021 will be able to happen despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
“We've been continuing to look forward now that we've gained some confidence that we can train large-scale, collective [military exercises] in this environment,” Bernabe said. “We've been looking further and further forward. As we speak, we're planning exercise Defender Europe 2021, to take place in the late spring, early summer of 2021, focused in the Black Sea and Balkans.”
Planning “is underway, again informed by our experiences between March and June. Having validated that we can do it, we're confident that we'll figure it out in partnership with our allies,” he added. “I feel confident that we will [be able to] maintain readiness and interoperability across Europe, despite COVID, regardless of how long it may be a part of our operating environment.”
Bernabe predicted the 2021 exercise will likely be smaller than 2020′s planned version, which should be no surprise.
Defender 2020 was billed as the third-largest military exercise in Europe since the end of the Cold War, a major test of the United States' ability to move stateside forces to locations across Europe, including Poland, the Baltics, some Nordic nations and Germany. A total of 20,000 soldiers were expected to participate.
However, the COVID-19 outbreak forced the Army to hit pause on the exercise in March just as it was starting. Several smaller, related drills were canceled outright, and U.S. forces were sent back home. A smaller associated exercise picked up again in June.
Bernabe's comments came just hours before the Army announced that a combined arms battalion would deploy to Europe between July 14 and Aug. 22 as part of the “final phase” of the modified Defender 2020 exercise.
The deployment will involve 550 soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, with the 1st Cavalry Division Headquarters in Poznan, Poland, serving as mission command.
Approximately 55 Abrams tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles will take part. The tanks will be equipped with the Trophy active protection system so the Army can “assess and experience the dynamics of moving and installing the system in a field environment.”
At the end of June, the European Union put citizens of the United States on a list of countries barred from traveling to EU member states due to the continued spread of COVID-19. However, military movements are exempt from that rule, and Bernabe believes the Army has a good plan in place for the intake of forces into Europe.
“To be good neighbors, we are using some very, I'd say, aggressive approaches to make sure that we are screening and testing for COVID as personnel arrive,” he said. “Make sure that we're putting in the mandatory 14 days' [quarantine], making sure that we continue screening, we wear masks, we practice physical distancing to make sure that we're not bringing infection into Europe while we focus on maintaining the military readiness.
“So thankfully we've worked with our host nations to continue to flow personnel into and out of Europe.”
Sur le même sujet
-
-
29 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial
Comparative SWOT & Program Strategy Assessment of the World's Top 6 Western Combat Aircraft (4/4.5 Gen) Programs - Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Dassault, Eurofighter and SAAB - ResearchAndMarkets.com
Combat jets have formed the core of the force structure of Air Forces globally since their advent in the piston engine powered form on to the battlefields during the World War I with technological evolution having heralded the age of jet powered combat aircrafts by the end of World War II with the usage of turbojet powered combat aircrafts by both sides towards the later part of the war. The radical shift in the prevailing, traditional rule based world order with the rapid build-up of military capabilities by China and resurgence of Russia on the world horizon having already propped up defense spending across most regions & parts of the world. Additionally, ongoing conflicts & unrest across some parts of the world, especially, the Middle East has also led to a spurt in defense spending over the recent years driving demand for western origin military hardware by most nations. The global defense spending reached the $1.9 trillion level for 2019, growing by over 3% year on year to reach its highest level since the Cold war era, accounting for around 2.2% of the world GDP for 2019. Fighter jets have remained a core focus area for nations around the world with their significant role & capabilities in aerial combat, interdiction, penetration of enemy air defenses, ground attack and air dominance/superiority roles. The 21st century has marked the mainstream shift towards the 5th generation aircrafts with the U.S. maintaining the lead as always, with its F-22 Raptor program in late 1990s and with the F-35 Lightning II in the 21st century, while similar 5th generation programs are being developed and produced by Russia, China & South Korea. The quest towards the development of 6th generation aircrafts, poised to enter service in the 2030s, has also begun, led by the European FCAS & the British Tempest programs. This report, however, focuses on the key fighter jet program from the perspective of competition for pursuit of international exports opportunities, which has mostly been led by 4 or 4.5 generation aircrafts so far with the same mostly aimed at capabilities expansion or fleet replacement. The study, thus, takes a close look at the Top 6 4/4.5 generation fighter jet programs currently in production from the international markets perspective with focus on comparative assessment of respective programs along with a comparative SWOT analysis on these programs which have on multiple occasions have come to face off each other in multiple international competitions over the recent years. The report provides a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the Strengths & Weaknesses of these combat jet programs relative to each other while scanning out environmental opportunities & threats for these in a rapidly evolving post COVID-19 world scenario (which is likely to see pressures on defense spending across most parts of the world over near term) which further enhances the relevance & usefulness of this report. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200527005384/en/Comparative-SWOT-Program-Strategy-Assessment-Worlds-Top
-
27 avril 2020 | International, C4ISR
Recalculating: GPS, L-band and the Pentagon’s untenable position on 5G
Daniel S. Goldin Last week, Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communication Commission, submitted the L-band Ligado spectrum proposal for approval, which, he said, will “make more efficient use of underused spectrum and promote the deployment of 5G” with “stringent conditions to prevent harmful [GPS] interference.” All five FCC commissioners voted to affirm the proposal, which was formally published in a 70-page report. L-band is a critical piece of spectrum that will help accelerate the deployment of U.S. 5G so we can compete and ultimately win against China. The Department of Defense argues that use of the L-band (as Ligado proposes) will interfere with GPS, which is essential to our military and economy. The FCC's final order concludes that the testing upon which the DoD and other opponents based their GPS interference claims was invalid. L-band opponents' interference measurement (termed 1dB C/No) is “inappropriate” and “there is no connection presented in the technical studies” that prove this measure of interference “relates to performance-based metrics” of a GPS receiver. In short, the FCC said there is no harmful GPS interference, and opponents have been using a flawed methodology and an invalid test with which the FCC “strongly disagree[s].” The FCC's recent report is not the first time the Ligado proposal was determined to cause no GPS interference. In early 2019, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration under David Redl reviewed the Ligado proposal carefully — along with the 20 government agencies that comprise the review body — and determined there is no interference. The NTIA then wrote a recommendation for approval and, before it could get to the FCC, it was blocked, eventually leading to Redl's dismissal. Further, over 5,000 hours of testing, including 1,500 hours at a high-tech U.S./DoD-sponsored and designed facility (performed by the world-recognized standard-in-testing National Institute of Standards and Technology scientists and engineers), proved no harmful GPS interference. Afterward, a DoD expert who monitored and confirmed the testing results told me “there is no interference problem, only a bureaucracy problem.” Yet DoD has continued to blitz the executive and legislative branches, galvanizing opposition with a compelling plea: Ligado hurts GPS, which endangers military operations and will harm the economy. Powerful. But factually wrong. And if wrong, why is Defense Secretary Mark Esper continuing to lobby against the FCC? The FCC is an independent agency. The Communications Act of 1934 charged the FCC with regulating communications for important reasons, including “for the purpose of national defense.” So why is the DoD employing principles of war — offensive operations to mass upon and seize the objective — toward the demise of Ligado's proposal and, perhaps implicitly, Ligado itself? Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee are weighing in on the DoD's behalf. They have been presented partial, one-sided information. Mr. Esper is a capable, reform-minded defense secretary who has brought much-needed change to the Pentagon. But he has also been advancing one-sided recommendations from his senior staff for GPS issues, some with longstanding connections to the highly influential Position, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board — which enjoys a level of influence akin to a special interest group within the U.S. government. A reading of the defense secretary's November 2019 letter to the NTIA reveals that even the DoD was never really sure about its own GPS interference claims, stating merely there are “too many unknowns,” the “risks are far too great,” testing shows “potential for” disruption and the Ligado system “could have a significant negative impact.” Yet, once the Ligado proposal was presented for approval on April 15 — with no new testing or analysis since November — DoD leadership tweeted that Ligado's signal “would needlessly imperil” DoD capabilities that use GPS, and risk “crippling our GPS networks.” If taken at face value, this means the DoD has spent over $50 billion over 45 years on a military GPS system that is so fragile it can be rendered useless by a 10-watt transmitter (a refrigerator light bulb) operating 23 MHz away. If true, this would represent one of the most egregious mismanagements of taxpayer dollars in federal procurement history. The pandemic has shown that China is coercing nations in need of medical assistance to adopt Chinese 5G infrastructure. Coercion from Chinese dominance in 5G would be worse. Agencies like the FCC and NTIA are in the national security arena now. As Attorney General William Barr stated in February, “we have to move decisively to auction the C-band and bring resolution on the L-band. Our economic future is at stake. We have to bear in mind in making these spectrum decisions that, given the narrow window we face, the risk of losing the 5G struggle with China should vastly outweigh all other considerations.” It is time for bold, forward-looking leadership and a wartime mindset. Chairman Pai deserves credit for setting this example. His courageous decision, coupled with support from the FCC commissioners and the strong statements of support from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Barr, signals a new determination to win the 5G race. L-band spectrum will enable other key elements of the U.S. 5G strategy and private sector innovation faster than any other option. It also demonstrates that a science-based approach to technology and policy is critical, otherwise we will grind to a near halt on every major decision — like this one — to China's benefit. America is truly “exceptional,” and the envy of every political system the world over, because our system is anchored on the rule of law and institutions that allow stakeholders' competing interests to be adjudicated. All parties have had many years to make their cases. The FCC's world-class scientists and engineers have come to a conclusion. The DoD has no new information; it just does not like the result. After all the internal policy battles are fought, there is only one constituency that matters: the American people and their national and economic security, consistent with U.S. policy objectives grounded in facts. This is why we must embrace this scientifically sound and strategically wise decision by the FCC and move forward, guided by another more apt principle of war: unity of effort. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/04/24/recalculating-gps-l-band-and-the-pentagons-untenable-position-on-5g/