21 avril 2021 | International, Aérospatial

Boeing Logistics Contract Builds on Decades of Support for Israel Apaches

The direct commercial sale, awarded in December 2020, is a five-year follow-on contract that builds on Boeing’s current IAF Apache support.

https://www.epicos.com/article/692416/boeing-logistics-contract-builds-decades-support-israel-apaches

Sur le même sujet

  • Bradley Replacement: Did Army Ask For ‘Unobtainium’?

    24 janvier 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Bradley Replacement: Did Army Ask For ‘Unobtainium’?

    By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. WASHINGTON: For the third time in 11 years, the Army's attempt to replace the 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley ran afoul of the age-old tradeoff between armor and mobility, several knowledgeable sources tell Breaking Defense. The General Dynamics prototype for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle – the only competitor left after other companies bowed out or were disqualified – was too heavy to meet the Army's requirement that a single Air Force C-17 cargo jet could carry two complete OMFVs to a war zone, we're told. But the vehicle had to be that heavy, GD's defenders say, to meet the Army's requirement for armor protection. Now, the Army hasn't officially said why it cancelled the current OMFV contract. Senior leaders – Chief of Staff, Gen. James McConville; the four-star chief of Army Futures Command, Gen. Mike Murray; and the civilian Army Acquisition Executive, Assistant Secretary Bruce Jette – have all publicly acknowledged that the requirements and timeline were “aggressive.” (Yes, all three men used the same word). Jette was the most specific, telling reporters that one vendor – which, from the context of his remark, could only be GD – did not meet all the requirements, but he wouldn't say which requirements weren't met. So, while we generally avoid writing a story based solely on anonymous sources, in this case we decided their track records (which we can't tell you about) were so good and the subject was so important that it was worth going ahead. “Industry told the Army the schedule was ‘unobtainium,' but they elected to proceed anyway,” one source told us: That's why the other potential competitors dropped out, seeing the requirements as too hard to meet. In particular, the source said, “industry needs more time to evaluate the trade [offs] associated with achieving the weight requirement.” With more time, industry might have been able to refine the design further to reduce weight, redesign major components to be lighter, or possibly – and this one is a stretch – even invent new stronger, lighter materials. But on the schedule the Army demanded, another source told us, reaching the minimum allowable protection without exceeding the maximum allowable weight was physically impossible. Why This Keeps Happening The Army's been down this road before and stalled out in similar ways. The Ground Combat Vehicle was too heavy, the Future Combat Systems vehicles were too light; “just right” still seems elusive. In 2009, Defense Secretary Bob Gates cancelled the Future Combat Systems program, whose BAE-designed Manned Ground Vehicles – including a Bradley replacement – had been designed to such strict weight limits that they lacked adequate armor. The Army had initially asked for the FCS vehicles to come in under 20 tons so one could fit aboard an Air Force C-130 turboprop transport. After that figure proved unfeasible, and the Air Force pointed out a C-130 couldn't actually carry 20 tons any tactically useful distance, the weight crept up to 26 tons, but the added armor wasn't enough to satisfy Gates' concerns about roadside bombs, then taking a devastating toll on US soldiers in Iraq. Four years later, amidst tightening budgets, the Army itself gave up on the Ground Combat Vehicle, another Bradley replacement, after strict requirements for armor protection drove both competing designs – from General Dynamics and BAE Systems – into the 56-70 ton range, depending on the level of modular add-on armor bolted onto the basic chassis. (A much-publicized Governmental Accountability Office study claimed GCV could reach 84 tons, but that was a projection for future growth, not an actual design). Not quite nine months ago, after getting initial feedback from industry on the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, the Army made the tough call to reduce its protection requirements somewhat to make it possible to fit two OMFVs on a C-17. If our sources are correct, however, it didn't reduce the armor requirement enough for General Dynamics to achieve the weight goal. One source says that two of the General Dynamics vehicles would fit on a C-17 if you removed its modular armor. The add-on armor kit could then be shipped to the war zone on a separate flight and installed, or simply left off if intelligence was sure the enemy lacked heavy weapons. But the requirements didn't allow for that compromise, and the Army wasn't willing to waive them, the source said, because officers feared a vehicle in the less-armored configuration could get troops killed. Other Options Now, there are ways to protect a vehicle besides heavy passive armor. Some IEDs in Iraq were big enough to cripple a 70-ton M1 Abrams. Russian tanks get by with much lighter passive armor covered by a layer of so-called reactive armor, which explodes outwards when hit, blasting incoming warheads before they can penetrate. Both Russia and Israel have fielded, and the US Army is urgently acquiring, Active Protection Systems that shoot down incoming projectiles. The problem with both reactive armor and active protection is that they're only proven effective against explosive warheads, like those found on anti-tank missiles. They're much less useful against solid shells, and while no missile ever fielded can use those, a tank's main gun can fling solid shot with such force that it penetrates armor through sheer concentrated kinetic energy. (Protecting against roadside bombs and land mines is yet another design issue, because they explode from underneath, but it's no longer the all-consuming question it once ways. Advances in suspension, blast-deflecting hull shapes, and shock absorption for the crew have made even the four-wheeled Joint Light Tactical Vehicle remarkably IED-resistant and pretty comfortable). If the Army were willing to take the risk of relying more on active protection systems, or give industry more time to improve active protection technology, it could reduce its requirements for heavy passive armor. Or the Army could remove the soldiers from its combat vehicles entirely and operate them with a mix of automation and remote control, which would make crew protection a moot point. In fact, the service is investing in lightly-armored and relatively expendable Robotic Combat Vehicles – but it still sees those unmanned machines as adjuncts to humans, not replacements. As long as the Army puts soldiers on the battlefield, it will want the vehicles that carry them to be well-protected. Alternatively, the Army could drop its air transport requirements and accept a much heavier vehicle. Israel has already done this with its Namer troop carrier, a modified Merkava heavy tank, but then the Israel army doesn't plan to fight anywhere far away. The US, by contrast, routinely intervenes overseas and has dismantled many of its Cold War bases around the world. Air transport is a limited commodity anyway, and war plans assume most heavy equipment will either arrive by sea or be pre-positioned in warehouses on allied territory. But the Army really wants to have the option to send at least some armored vehicles by air in a crisis. If the Army won't give ground on either protection or transportability, then it faces a different dilemma: They need to either give industry more time to invent something revolutionary, or accept a merely evolutionary improvement. “We're going to reset the requirements, we're going to reset the acquisition strategy and timeline,” Gen. McConville said about OMFV on Tuesday. But, when he discussed Army modernization overall, he repeatedly emphasized that “we need transformational change, not incremental improvements. “Transformational change is how we get overmatch and how we get dominance in the future,” the Chief of Staff said. “We aren't looking for longer cords for our phones or faster horses for our cavalry.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/bradley-replacement-did-army-ask-for-unobtainium

  • New tropical boots coming by the end of 2019

    6 septembre 2019 | International, Naval

    New tropical boots coming by the end of 2019

    By: Shawn Snow The Corps' new tropical boots may be on the feet of some Marines by the end of 2019, according to Marine officials. The Corps awarded two contracts on Aug. 29 for up to 140,000 total pairs of two styles of tropical boots, according to Maj. Ken Kunze, a spokesman for Marine Corps Systems Command. Kunze said one contract was awarded to ADS Inc. for a maximum order of 70,000 pairs of the Rocky brand tropical boot. That contract award was valued at $11.1 million dollars, Kunze said. Another contract was awarded to Provengo LLC for 70,000 pairs of the Danner brand tropical boot, with a contract valued at $13.7 million, according to Kunze. Kunze said the initial order for the new tropical boots is being procured in September and they should start arriving in 60 days to 90 days. The boots have gone through rigorous training during the past several years. In 2017, Marines with 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines, evaluated three tropical boot prototypes from boot manufacturers Danner, Bates and Rocky while training in a jungle environment. The new boots will not be part of a Marine's general seabag issue. The boots are headed for the for the Consolidated Storage Program, and will be issued to Marines in predeployment training before heading to a hot or tropical climate, Manny Pacheco, a spokesman for Marine Corps Systems Command, previously told Marine Corps Times. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2019/09/05/new-tropical-boots-coming-by-the-end-of-2019

  • Soon to come to the Army: A high-power microwave to take out drone swarms

    8 août 2019 | International, Terrestre

    Soon to come to the Army: A high-power microwave to take out drone swarms

    By: Jen Judson HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — The Army is planning to field a high-power microwave capability to take out drone swarms as part of its Indirect Fires Protection Capability system in development. Through the Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) the service is looking to get the capability fielded to a unit by 2024 with a demonstration of the capability planned in 2022, the RCCTO director said August 7 at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium. RCCTO's job is to serve as a bridge between the science and technology community and the program executive offices, helping bring technology out of development and into soldiers' hands, first on a small scale and then a larger scale when passed off to program offices. The RCCTO right now is focused entirely on hypersonics and directed energy weapons. The IFPC system is being developed to counter rockets, artillery and mortar, as well as cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft systems, and the means to do that would be through a system featuring multiple types of missiles and also a laser capability to take out threats. Adding lasers to the mix means decreasing the number of expensive shots that would be taken against very inexpensive weapons. The Army is working to initially field a 100-kilowatt laser capability on a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles as part of the IFPC program with a plan to demonstrate the capability in 2022 and then field prototypes to a unit. And the RCCTO is also looking at how to field even more powerful lasers for the IFPC mission between 250 and 300 kilowatts. But the service recognizes it might be easier to disrupt the flight of multiple drones at once rather than try to take out each one with a laser. “Lasers can do things but if you are a combatant commander, there is a toolbox of things you need to be successful on the battle space,” Thurgood said. “It's not just one tool but a series of tools.” So the program is teaming with the Air Force's effort to develop a high power microwave capability, he said. The Air Force will do the research and development work, but the Army will supply them with funding to build prototypes. The goal is to demonstrate a high-power microwave capability in 2022 and then field the capability to a small unit, much like what the RCCTO will do with the IFPC high-energy laser system. If the laser and high-power microwave capability both work well in small units, then they will transition to programs of record within the IFPC program, Thurgood said. Earlier this year, the Army awarded a contract to Dynetics, who is partnered with Lockheed Martin and Rolls Royce, to build the 100-kilowatt laser system for IFPC. The Army is also rapidly fielding a 50-kilowatt laser on a Stryker. Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are competing to build the system and, in FY21, the two lasers will be tested on difficult threats. The service will choose on to build prototypes that will be fielded to a Platoon in FY22. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2019/08/07/the-armys-indirect-fires-protection-system-is-getting-a-high-power-microwave/

Toutes les nouvelles