16 juillet 2020 | International, Naval

Congress skeptical of Navy’s unmanned vessels plans

The U.S. Navy wants $464 million for unmanned surface vessels, but Congress is not on the same page.

Legislators have so far declined to fully fund the massive investment into research and development for large and medium unmanned surface vessels as they work through the annual defense bill, citing the request as “excessive procurement ahead of satisfactory testing.”

Among other things, that budget request would give the Navy $239 million to purchase two Overlord large unmanned surface vehicle (LUSV) prototypes for testing.

While the Senate Armed Services Committee has declined to authorize any of the $464 million request, the House Armed Services Committee agreed to authorize just $270 million of that request — specifically cutting funding for the two LUSVs. Instead, the House version would provide the Navy $45 million to convert a Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport ship into a LUSV for further testing.

In a report on the bill issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee, lawmakers argued that the Navy already has the LUSVs that can fill the Strategic Capabilities Office's needs in this area.

But perhaps more importantly, the committee members do not seem convinced that LUSVs are ready for prime time.

“The committee remains concerned that the budget request's concurrent approach to LUSV design, technology development, and integration as well as a limited understanding of the LUSV concept of employment, requirements, and reliability for envisioned missions pose excessive acquisition risk for additional LUSV procurement in fiscal year 2021,” the report reads. “The committee is also concerned by the unclear policy implications of LUSVs, including ill-defined international unmanned surface vessel standards and the legal status of armed or potentially armed LUSVs.”

Furthermore, legislators remain unconvinced that the current unmanned vessels can hold up to the physical environment of extended operations at sea. While the Navy requires its unmanned platforms to be able to operate continuously at sea for 30 days without maintenance or repairs, the committee report notes the Strategic Capabilities Office's prototypes have only demonstrated two to three days of continuous operation.

The Senate version of the bill would require the Navy to formally qualify two main engines and electrical generators — including successfully demonstrating 30 days of continuous operations at sea — before Milestone B approval is granted.

An industry group hit back July 9.

In a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International called on legislators to fully fund the Navy's fiscal 2021 request.

“It is imperative that Congress continues to fund the research and development (R&D) efforts included in the Navy's FY21 budget request,” wrote President and CEO Brian Wynne. “Failing to do so will disrupt the significant investment industry has made in unmanned systems over the last several years. The severe reduction in funding being considered in the FY21 NDAA would eliminate jobs, drive many small companies out of business, and cause larger companies to shift their R&D investments to more stable opportunities”

The committee report argues that its requirements do not delay these programs, but in fact will enable the delivery of unmanned surface vehicles faster by ensuring they are “capable, reliable and sustainable.”

In the meantime, the Navy has moved forward with its unmanned surface vehicle efforts.

On July 13, the Navy awarded L3Harris $35 million to develop a medium unmanned surface vehicle prototype, with an option to buy eight more later on. If all options are exercised, the contract could be worth up to $294 million.

“The award of Medium USV is the culmination of a great dialogue with industry to right-size the requirements for a capable, reliable, and affordable unmanned surface vehicle that will employ a variety of modular payloads,” said Capt. Pete Small, program manager of Unmanned Maritime Systems within the Unmanned and Small Combatants Program Executive Office. “Leveraging new rapid prototyping authorities and mature commercial technology will allow us to quickly deliver a capable prototype to the Surface Development Squadron to conduct experimentation and learning in support of the Navy's plans for a future fleet incorporating unmanned vessels.”

The prototype is expected to be delivered in fiscal 2023. However, the Navy press release announcing the award notes that funding for future MUSV prototypes is uncertain. While the Navy has asked for additional fiscal 2021 funding for a second MUSV prototype in fiscal 2023, that acquisition strategy is yet to be determined.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2020/07/15/congress-skeptical-of-navys-unmanned-vessels-plans/

Sur le même sujet

  • The US Air Force is in no hurry to commit to a next-gen fighter design

    19 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    The US Air Force is in no hurry to commit to a next-gen fighter design

    By: Sebastian Sprenger BERLIN — The U.S. Air Force is taking its time to settle on a next-generation fighter design, awaiting instead lessons learned from the F-35 jet and playing the field with promising technologies, according to a senior service official. Options being kicked around are still in the conceptual stage, as America's newest fighter, the fifth-generation F-35, is only now “coming off the line,” according to Lt. Gen. David Nahom, the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for plans and programs. “We're not in a hurry,” Nahom told Defense News on the sidelines of the International Fighter Conference, an air power-themed confab of industry and government officials held in Berlin, Germany. He noted that expected deliveries of the F-35 and the relatively young age of the F-22 fleet enables the service to be picky about moving forward with the envisioned Next Generation Air Dominance weapon. In short, the Air Force wants to keep its options open for as long as possible for a weapon whose combat punch will lie not in a single aircraft but rather in the amalgamation of hardware and software, an airborne concerto of data clouds, artificial intelligence, and boundless interconnectivity. “We don't want to get too stuck into a platform,” Nahom said. “It's a very different way to approach it.” Still, the service plans to lay the groundwork for boosting the domain of information and data — organizing it, analyzing it, sharing it — as a key element for future aerial warfare. To that end, officials will include a “significant investment in the digital backbone” in the next budget request, Nahom said. As the Air Force studies its options, service analysts have shied away from the term “sixth-generation” aircraft as a successor to the F-35 because it's unclear what breakthrough technology will be created next. “What are the characteristics of sixth-generation? I don't know,” Nahom said. “Stealth is important,” he added, referring to one of the advertised features of the F-35. “But speed is important, too.” The service aims to develop a new capability quickly once the theoretical legwork is done. That is why there is a renewed emphasis now on engineering processes and algorithm development that Nahom said will have to unfold much faster than under previous aircraft programs. Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper has put down a marker to develop an aircraft within five years. “Based on what industry thinks they can do and what my team will tell me, we will need to set a cadence of how fast we think we build a new airplane from scratch. Right now, my estimate is five years. I may be wrong,” he told Defense News in an interview in September. The service's information-heavy tack on future aerial warfare echoes two European projects aimed at building a next-generation weapon: the British-led Tempest and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System. Both programs also lean on the the premise that data clouds, driven by artificial intelligence, can turn flying pieces of metal into breakthrough weaponry. In the case of the continental program, an envisioned “combat cloud” will be “the ocean between the islands of the platforms,” French Maj. Gen. Jean-Pascal Breton said at the conference. But Nahom noted a difference in the American way of thinking when it comes to piercing contested airspace — a key skill required of all future warplanes. While the Europeans seem to perceive the task as popping dispersed bubbles of ever-improving air defense systems, the U.S. view is that any airspace may be contested at any given time. That means a next-generation aircraft will be constantly engaged in the mission of punching its way through enemy defenses, like finding the holes in a never-ending series of Swiss cheese, Nahom said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/11/18/the-us-air-force-is-in-no-hurry-to-commit-to-a-next-gen-fighter-design/

  • Northrop Grumman gets a start on next-gen missile warning satellites

    30 août 2018 | International, C4ISR

    Northrop Grumman gets a start on next-gen missile warning satellites

    By: Daniel Cebul WASHINGTON — The Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a contract worth as much as $47 million for an analysis of system and payload requirements for a new missile warning satellite system in polar orbit. Specifically, the contract will be used for the Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared Polar (OPIR) space vehicles 1 and 2. Work will be performed in Redondo Beach, California, and is expected to be completed by June 25, 2020, according to a contract announcement. The OPIR polar space vehicles will be part of a five-satellite constellation that will augment the legacy Space-based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS), which operates as the U.S. military's early warning missile system. During the fiscal year 2019 budget release, the Air Force announced its plans to cancel the 7th and 8th SBIRS satellites in favor or reallocating funds towards OPIR systems. In May 2018, the Air Force released a notice of intent to sole-source contracts to Lockheed Martin and Northrop for the new program. Lockheed Martin will produce three geosynchronous orbiting satellites and Northrop Grumman is responsible for two polar orbiting satellites. The first geosynchronous OPIR satellite is scheduled to be launched in 2023, and the first polar satellite is scheduled to launch in 2027. The Air Force wants the entire “block O” architecture to be operational by FY 2029. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor on the SBIRS satellites. Northrop Grumman provides the sensors, a scanner and a starer, on those satellites. Full article: https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/satellites/2018/08/29/northrop-grumman-gets-a-start-next-gen-missile-warning-satellites

  • SASC chairman: We must build the national security innovation base our defense strategy requires

    2 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    SASC chairman: We must build the national security innovation base our defense strategy requires

    By: Sen. Jim Inhofe Since World War II, the American people have believed our military has had the best of everything, but the technological superiority that kept us 20 years ahead of our competitors has rapidly diminished. In some cases, we're already behind. By 2030, unless we pursue “urgent change at significant scale,” as former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis put it, it's likely the U.S. will face an enemy with superior weapons, superior equipment and superior capabilities. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our strategic competition with China. China used to just steal our technology. Now, through heavy investment, they are improving it. The result? China is outpacing the U.S. in key areas like hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies — not to mention conventional capabilities. China isn't the only one. Technological development is accelerating across the globe, expanding to more actors and changing the very nature of war. We can't afford to let our advantage erode further. It is up to the Department of Defense and Congress to make sure that the defense-industrial base becomes, as the National Defense Strategy demands, an “unmatched 21st century National Security Innovation Base.” If we want to “sustain security and solvency,” we need to consider wholesale change to industry culture and its interface with the Department of Defense, shed outdated management processes, and reimagine a resilient supply chain that mitigates 21st century risks. This essay is part of the Defense News 2020 Outlook project. Click here for more. This begins with software, which is foundational to military capability. The DoD and its traditional hardware-dominant industry partners have been behind on software in almost every way — talent, tools, development and delivery processes. Software innovation has failed in countless DoD programs, including the Ford-class carrier, the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System and the GPS next-generation operational control system. Instead of taking the Pentagon for granted as an endless source of cash flow, partners must refocus their attention on delivering secure capability that actually works. Next, the Department of Defense needs to continue to expand capacity — prioritizing speed of delivery and adapting its systems to maximize value and output. For too long we have been slow to expand our stockpiles of fifth-generation weapons required to fight peer adversaries. The second production line for JASSM-ER cruise missiles is a good start toward building the capacity needed to retain advantages that will make any enemy think twice before attacking. We must do the same for other fifth-generation weapons, including air-to-air missiles. Shipbuilding, including aircraft carriers, surface ships, submarines and our logistics fleet, is another area where our capacity is severely limited. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, which recently surpassed ours in size, is on track to reach 400 ships in 2025 and is nearly self-sufficient for all components. Size of the fleet isn't a sole consideration. We've focused on ensuring the capability of our fleet remains unmatched and bolstering suppliers of critical components, but we must also improve the construction performance of lead ships in new classes to maintain and build upon our capability advantage. The last thing we want is a fair fight. Innovation is best done at the subsystem level through a rigorous engineering-based process centered on building knowledge through full-scale prototypes, which can then inform ship design. We are eager to work with the Navy to identify and fund more of these prototypes, which will serve as the building blocks of the future fleet. We also must accelerate innovation. Recent defense authorization legislation encourages the DoD to streamline acquisition, take a business-minded approach to contracting, and tap into nontraditional suppliers and public-private partnerships. This must continue. Dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one. The DoD has looked to Silicon Valley, but we are competing with Chinese influence there as well, and the Pentagon has often proven an impossible customer due to its antiquated bureaucracy. Any technological improvements will be meaningless if vulnerable to being infiltrated or stolen. Recent legislation continues support for the DoD as it assesses and mitigates risks to its supply chains posed by adversaries. Both the government and contractors need to cooperate on and use modern verification tools to identify trusted suppliers and manufacturers, as well as fix vulnerabilities. To make these tools useful, the DoD must first establish a working digital model of its suppliers. Lastly, while we must continue to invest in the domestic, organic industrial base, it's important to remember that we can't take on China and Russia alone — which is why the National Defense Strategy emphasizes our network of allies and partners. We must remove unnecessary barriers to industrial cooperation that degrade our collective competitive edge. We do not have to make a false choice between investing domestically and in our allies — we can do both. Under our National Technology and Industrial Base partnership with Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, we can develop a more diverse, resilient industrial base, secure our supply chains, and become a “five eyes for defense procurement.” It's in our best interest to ensure our allies can leverage our technological advantages and we can leverage theirs. Without a strong national security innovation base, the Pentagon cannot implement the National Defense Strategy. Congress' job is to put the appropriate, tailored policy in place and provide sufficient, predictable resources to help the industrial base meet these challenges. Together, we can harness the power of American innovation to ensure that we are able to win the wars of the future. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/sasc-chairman-we-must-build-the-national-security-innovation-base-our-defense-strategy-requires

Toutes les nouvelles