Competition heats up for Army's future tactical UAS

Sur le même sujet

• 

  6 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  The Pentagon has relaunched its Space Command location search. Here’s why.

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The future location of U.S. Space Command, and all its associated jobs and dollars, won't be coming before the November election, thanks to a directive by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to relaunch the department's search process. On Tuesday, Space Force Vice Commander Lt. Gen. David Thompson told the House Armed Services Committee that department leaders are “going to take a holistic look at all of the potential options, all the potential locations" being considered for the combatant command. “We've been directed to go back, open up the aperture, and look at all of them. And so, that includes — that include bases. It includes perhaps some nontraditional locations. We will absolutely establish the criteria we need for each of these organizations and then base them accordingly,” he added. And on Wednesday, Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett confirmed that the Air Force would be restarting the national competition for Space Command's location. “We're going to reopen the process, and put forward criteria in detail and invite all who think they have a good shot at it to come and represent their communities for that possible basing choice,” the secretary said. Barrett added that an announcement on the new competition would come “this spring.” Those comments led to a pointed line of questioning to Esper from Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., who during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing directly asked if the decision to recompete was tied up in electoral politics. Thompson testified that “the Air Force was directed — and I emphasize the word ‘directed' — to go back and open this up," Jones said. "A cynical person in today's world would think there are some electoral politics coming into play in this.” He then pointedly asked if the decision came from the White House. A leaked 2019 memo of potential bases listed four locations in Colorado — Buckley Air Force Base, Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, Peterson Air Force Base and Schriever Air Force Base — as well as the Army's Redstone Arsenal in Alabama and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. There has been heavy political push from the Florida delegation as well. Awarding Space Command and its myriad of jobs could benefit politicians running in a swing state such as Colorado or Florida; Jones, a surprise winner in a 2017 special election, is a top target for Republicans in November's election and could potentially benefit should the award go to his native Alabama. Esper, however, denied there was any push from the White House to influence politics, stating bluntly: “It came from me. I'm the responsible party.” The reason for the change, he explained, came from discussions with members as far back as his August nomination process. “During my talks on the hill prior to my nomination, particularly after my hearing here, I visited the House and heard from members on both sides of the aisle that they thought the process that had been run was unfair and not transparent. And there were a number of complaints,” Esper said. “So I directed at that time that we pause in place. “I took a briefing on it along with [Deputy Secretary of Defense David] Norquist. We did not feel it was transparent enough; that enough states, members etc. had a chance to participate. So we directed it be revisited, and a different approach be taken where [the department would] outline the criteria, the screening criteria by which a place would meet as a qualifier, throw that to all members and offer them to nominate locations,” while being transparent about the criteria and giving rolling updates to Congress as the work progressed. However, that process took time to get going, and until a month ago was not fully underway, Esper conceded, meaning it will now take “several months” before anything is finalized — almost certainly after November's election is over. “I'm the one who did it. It was my initiative, simply to make sure that transparency and buy in and consent with the process,” he said. “If it helps assure you, I don't see anything being announced before the election.” https://www.defensenews.com/space/2020/03/05/the-pentagon-has-relaunched-its-space-command-location-search-heres-why/

• 

  20 décembre 2017 | International, Aérospatial

  Here’s how the Trump administration could make it easier to sell military drones

  WASHINGTON — The United States is actively pursuing a change to a major arms control treaty that would open the door for wider exports of military drones. The proposed change to the Missile Technology Control Regime would make it easier for nations to sell the systems, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, that fly under 650 km per hour, according to multiple sources who are aware of the efforts. The MTCR is an agreement among 35 nations that governs the export of missiles and UAVs. Under the terms of the MTCR, any “category-1” system capable of carrying 500-kilogram payloads for more than 300 kilometers is subject to a “strong presumption of denial.” Proponents of UAV exports argue that language, while appropriate for curtailing the sale of cruise missiles, should not group together expandable weapons and unmanned systems. Instead, they argue, UAVs should be looked at the same way fighter jets or other high-tech military vehicles are. As part of an effort to find a compromise, American officials floated a white paper during the latest plenary session on the MTCR in October, proposing new language to the treaty: that any air vehicle that flies under 650 kilometers per hour would drop to “category-2” and thus be subject to approval on a case-by-case basis. A State Department official confirmed to Defense News that the U.S. presented the white paper, and that American negotiators have zeroed in on the speed of the vehicles as a potential change to the treaty. However, the official declined to comment on the exact speed under consideration. “I can't confirm any specific numbers because it's treated — inside the MTCR — as proprietary ... particularly because there's a deliberative process,” the official said. “But I can tell you that speed is the thing that we, based on industry input and all, have looked at. And that's what we have discussed with partners. And I know other governments are also looking at speed as well, so we're all sort of coming to a similar conclusion.” Under the MTCR, a “presumption of denial” about exports for category-1 systems exists. In essence, that means countries tied into the MTCR need to have a very compelling case to sell them. However, the speed change, if adopted, would result in most drones used by the U.S. military dropping down from category-1 to category-2, allowing the U.S. to sell them through the traditional foreign military sale or direct commercial sale methods. “Treating drones as missiles is fundamentally incoherent. It reflects a 1980s view of the technology,” said Michael Horowitz, a former Pentagon official now with the University of Pennsylvania who has studied drone issues. “To the extent creating a speed delineation helps you get around that problem, it's a good practical solution.” The impact of speed Most medium-altitude, long-endurance systems like General Atomics' MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper fly at slow speeds, with the Reaper clocking in with a cruise speed of 230 mph or 370 kph, according to an Air Force facts sheet. Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk, a high-altitude ISR drone, flies only at a cruise speed of about 357 mph or 575 kph. The 650 kph ceiling would also keep the door open for companies developing cutting-edge rotorcraft that could be modified in the future to be unmanned — a key request made by the companies involved in the Future Vertical Lift consortium, said one industry source. Those companies include Bell Helicopter and a Sikorsky-Boeing team, both of which are developing high-speed rotorcraft that can fly at excess of 463 kph, or 250 knots, for the Army's Joint Multi Role technology demonstrator program. However, the limitation would ensure that some of the United States' most technologically advanced UAVs stay out of the grasp of other nations. For example, it would prevent the proliferation of jet-powered, fast moving flying wing drones like Boeing's Phantom Ray and Northrop Grumman's X-47B demonstrators, both of which can cruise at near-supersonic speeds. While the UAV industry wants the U.S. government to pick up the pace on drone export reform, the State Department and other agencies argue that a prudent approach is needed. For example, any change to the MTCR that loosens restrictions on low-speed drones also needs to be closely examined to ensure that missile technology is still strictly controlled. “We don't want any unintended consequences, so it has to be crafted carefully. We don't want to inadvertently drop something else out like a cruise missile,” the State Department official said. The focus on speed is particularly smart at a time when countries are focused on increasing the speed of their munitions, Horowitz said. He pointed to growing investments in hypersonic weapons as an example where creating a speed delineation in the MTCR would allow the U.S. to push for greater UAV exports while “holding the line on exports of next-generation missiles.” Industry desires Industry has long argued that the United States has taken an overly proscriptive route, hamstringing potential drone sales to allies and pushing them into the arms of more nefarious actors such as China, the other major UAV producer on the worldwide market. Modifying the MTCR is just one facet of the Trump administration's review of drone export policy, which also includes taking a second look at domestic regulations that can be amended by the president at will. Because changes to the MTCR require consensus among the regime's 35 member countries, industry sees it as a direly-needed, but long-term solution. “Now we have lighter-than-air vehicles; we have intelligence, surveillance reconnaissance [UAVs]. We still have cruise missiles, we have aircraft that could autonomous for cargo and other purposes. But [the MTCR] doesn't distinguish between any of that, so a revisit of those MTCR rules is in order for things that fly and can fly autonomously,” said Aerospace Industries Association President David Melcher during a December 14 roundtable with reporters. American firms are particularly concerned about losing out on sales in the Middle East. China has already exported its Wing Loong — a medium altitude, long endurance UAV that resembles General Atomics' MQ-1 Predator — to multiple countries worldwide, including some close U.S. partners such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, sales of U.S.-made drones have been rarer, with many Middle Eastern countries such as the UAE only able to buy unarmed versions of American UAVs, even though those nations regularly purchase more technologically advanced weaponry like fighter jets from the United States. The State official noted that any change in the MTCR would not need to wait until the next plenary session, but could be introduced in some form as early as an April technical meeting. And at least one industry source was optimistic about the administration's MTCR reform plan. “They're taking a pretty smart process in not trying to tackle everything at once, but trying to get some of the language corrected in small bites,” the source said. “I don't see this as being an overnight process. I don't think we're going to end up in the next six months with a brand new MTCR policy.” However, Horowitz warned that the nature of the MTCR, where any single country could veto such a change, means getting any changes will not be easy. Russia, for example, could block the move not on technical reasons but geopolitical ones, given relations between Moscow and Washington. If that happens, Horowitz noted, the U.S. could potentially look to apply the 650 kph speed definition on its own, something possible because of the voluntary nature of the MTCR. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/12/19/heres-how-the-trump-administration-could-make-it-easier-to-sell-military-drones/

• 

  15 juillet 2019 | International, Autre défense

  Army researchers building ‘smart’ landmines for future combat

  By: Todd South FREDERICKSBURG, Va. – Army leaders see a future battlefield with networked minefields a commander can see from across the globe through satellite communications and that can be scattered in minutes but also retrieved and reused when needed. The push is an effort to keep landmines of various types in the weapons portfolio while still meeting the agreements made to get out of the old school “dumb” landmine use. Smart mines being developed now are a way to replace some of the aging stocks in the “Family of Scatterable Mines” run by the Army's Program Manager Close Combat Systems. The program actually runs nearly half of all munitions from non-lethals to hand grenades to shoulder-fired rockets and counter explosives equipment. The portfolio, its challenges and what's happening now were laid out for attendees at the annual National Defense Industrial Association's Armament Systems Forum in June. Top of the priority lists are some simple munitions needs — more hand-grenade fuzes and better shoulder-fired weapons. But the big ticket items that need problem solving are how to use “terrain shaping obstacles,” or landmines, that can be delivered to close, middle and deep distances and then controlled to avoid the problems of scattering mines across war zones and then leaving them for an innocent passerby to trigger years or decades later. Small options such as the remote activation system used for current mine emplacements relies on radio frequency transmissions. But, as Pelino noted, in a near peer fight it's likely that adversaries will do RF jamming. The Army has a host of terrain-shaping obstacles, everything from the trusty standby Claymore mine which came online in the late 1950s and saw extensive use in the Vietnam War to the Gator system, which can be air dropped to take out everything from an individual soldier to a tank. They're also the anti-personnel area denial artillery munition, or ADAM, mine that can be launched using a 155mm round from artillery. Its cousin, the remote anti-armor munition, or RAAM, packs a bit more of a punch but also can be delivered from anything that fires a 155mm shell. Both are fired to the area of the threat and then roll out multiple mines that detonate when the appropriate level of vibration triggers them. Pelino described the Modular Pack Mine System, or MOPMS, like a minefield in a suitcase. Though coming in at 165 pounds, that's a very heavy suitcase. A single radio-control unit can run up to 15 MOPMS on the battlefield. They can also be hardwired to a controller. An upside to the MOPMS is it can be recovered and reused. On the lighter side is the M86 pursuit deterrent munition. It was designed for special operations forces to use when being pursued by an enemy. Think classic films where the character scatters nails or an oil slick to slow down their chaser, except with a lot more boom. Only instead of firing from a cannon, the soldier has to arm the device and deploy tripwires for bad guys to stumble upon. The Volcano mine system takes more of an industrial approach. Allowing a UH-60 Black Hawk to create a 1,000-foot minefield in less than a minute, Pelino said. The problem with all of those systems is they don't currently meet treaty obligations and many that had about a 20-year shelf life are pushing past 30 years now. Most will still be in stock at 2035, as the Army uses updates to keep them serviceable, Pelino said. The newer Spider System is one that allows soldiers to put in a porcupine-looking system that gives 360-degree coverage to deny enemy access to an area while also networking with other systems and a common controller. Future systems will look a lot more like Spider and a lot less like pressure plate mines of the World War II era or the venerable Claymore. The future minefield systems must have a 2 to 300km communications capability, an ability to be switched on and off, remotely modified self-destruct or deactivate mechanisms, self-report status so that users will know if they've been tampered with or if a mine went off. The Army also wants the mines to be able to not just blow up when something rumbles by but also detect, track and engage threat vehicles for everything from tanks to engineer equipment. Oh, and it must work in all terrain and weather conditions, be easily trained and employed, recoverable, reusable and affordable. The standard kit will include between half and a full brigade's worth of mines to block off areas for maneuver and prevent enemy flanking. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/07/12/army-researchers-building-smart-landmines-for-future-combat/