23 avril 2020 | International, Terrestre

Do Soldiers Dream Of Electric Trucks?

While Tesla won’t be building heavy tanks, the Army Futures & Concepts Center says moving lighter, wheeled vehicles from fossil fuel to electric drive could streamline supply lines – and save lives.

By   

WASHINGTON: In wartime, the cost of gas is often partly paid in blood. Hundreds of US troops have died and thousands have been wounded fighting to move supplies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Against an adversary with long-range missiles like Russia, the carnage among convoys would be worse.

The bulkiest cargo and often the most needed (along with bullets and bombs): fuel. If you could dramatically reduce the amount of gas the US military consumes, you could reduce the logistics burden a great deal. Fewer fuel convoys on the road would save money in peacetime and lives in wartime. But how do you get there?

With electric vehicles, answers Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley, head of the Futures & Concepts Center at Army Futures Command.

“Tesla is building large [semitrailer] trucks,” he told reporters in a wide-ranging roundtable yesterday. “Battery costs have gone down precipitously over the last 10 years,” he said, recharge times have dropped, and ranges has grown longer. What’s more, electric motors have many fewer moving parts than internal combustion ones, making them potentially easier to maintain and repair.

“The entire automotive industry is migrating towards this idea of electrification,” he said. “We’re already, I would argue, late to the need.”

Not only do electric motors not need gas, Wesley said. They also can generate power for high-tech combat systems – sensorscommand networkseven laser weapons and robots – that currently require dedicated auxiliary power units or diesel generators that burn even more fuel. Imagine a squad of soldiers recharging their jamming-resistant radios and IVAS targeting goggles in their vehicle between missions, or a mobile command post running its servers off the same truck that carried them.

The Hard Part

Electric motors can even help frontline forces sneak up on the enemy, he said. They run much quieter and cooler than internal combustion engines, making it much harder to hear electric vehicles approaching or spot them on infrared.

Army graphic

The Army’s cancelled Future Combat System would have included a family of hybrid-electric vehicles. Even the ambitious FCS program didn’t try to build all-electric tanks.

Now, Wesley isn’t talking about electric tanks, just trucks. “Right now, we don’t see the technology, on the near-term horizon, being able to power heavy vehicles,” he said. That’s because even the latest batteries still provide less power per pound than fossil fuel. (Engineers call this “energy density”). So, for example, the replacement for the Reagan-era M2 Bradley troop carrier – likely to weigh about 50 tons — is going to need an internal combustion engine or at least a hybrid diesel-electric one. But the vast majority of Army vehicles are wheeled, from supply trucks to the JLTV, an armored 4×4 replacing many Humvees: That weight class, up to 10 or even 15 tons, can move on electrical power alone.

Wesley had planned to kick off his electrification drive with a panel discussion at last month’s AUSA Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Ala. (I would’ve been the moderator). But that conference got canceled due to the COVID-19 coronavirus, so he’s rolling it out to the press instead. His staff is working on an in-depth internal study for his boss, the four-star chief of Army Futures Command, Gen. John “Mike” Murray.

There are a lot of thorny problems to work out, Wesley acknowledges. The big one: Where do you generate the electricity in the first place? In a war zone, you can’t just pull into your garage and plug into a charger overnight.

“We can’t just go buy an electric vehicle. We have to look at the supply chains,” he said. One option the Army’s considering, he said, is miniaturized, mobile nuclear power plants – something the Pentagon is now researching and says should be safe even after a direct hit.

While Wesley didn’t discuss other alternatives, the fallback option is presumably burning some fossil fuel to run a generator, which then charges batteries or capacitators.

“We’re writing a draft white paper proposal for Gen. Murray and the Army to look at this holistically,” Wesley said, “[and] we are building up a proposal that we will publish here in early summer that is going to describe a recommendation for how the Army transitions toward the future.”

“My expectation is that it’s about a 10-year horizon right now to do something like that which I just described,” he said. “If that’s true, then we have to have a transition plan for the Army to move in this direction.”

Extended excerpts from Lt. Gen. Wesley’s roundtable with reporters, edited for length & clarity, follow below. He also discussed how Army units have to evolve for future multi-domain operations: more on that later this week.

Q:  The Army’s been interested in electric vehicles and alternative fuel for some time. What’s new here?

A: We were going to have a panel on this to kick off [at AUSA Global Force]: a broader look at electrification and alternative fuel sources for the Army. We’re writing a draft white paper proposal for Gen. Murray and the Army to look at this holistically. And we are building up a proposal that we will publish here in early summer that is going to describe a recommendation for how the Army transitions toward the future.

 

Tesla is building large [semitrailer] trucksUPS and FedEx are starting to buy these vehicles to learn how they move into that area. The entire automotive industry is migrating towards this idea of electrification, and there’s a lot of good reasons for it. And as the entire industry goes to electrification, the supply of internal combustion engine parts is going to go down and therefore prices are going to go up.

Battery costs have gone down precipitously over the last 10 years. Recharge times and range [have improved]. The trajectory that all of that is on, in the next two years, it’ll be far more efficient to have an electric vehicle than internal combustion, so we’re already, I would argue, late to the need.

Q: What’s slowed the Army down?

A: The problem is bigger for the Army than it is for any corporation, industry, or family, because you have to have a means to move the energy and generate the energy at the right time and place. It’s not that the Army is slow to move on this, we just have a bigger problem to solve, and I would argue that’s what we have to do now.

The issue is not whether we can build hybrid vehicles. That’s easy. In fact, any one of us could go out and — as long as there’s not a waiting list — buy a Tesla tomorrow and sell our Chevy Suburban. You plug it in at home, we’ve got the infrastructure. You don’t have to change your supply chain or your way of life when you buy a Tesla.

The Army, we can’t just go buy an electric vehicle, we have to look at the supply chains. How are you going to have [electricity] sources for charging?

If technology tells us that safe, mobile nuclear power plants, for example, something that goes on the back of a truck, are realistic, and if you add capacitor technology [to store the electricity], you can distribute that forward in varying ways.

Q: Are we talking about electric-drive tanks here? Or just trucks?

A: The Army hasn’t said, we’re going all-electric. Right now, we don’t see the technology, on the near-term horizon, being able to power heavy vehicles, it’s just too much of a drain on the battery. The Next Generation Combat Vehicle, it’s still going to require you to have an internal combustion engine.

But if we could reduce the fossil fuel consumption by transitioning our wheeled vehicles [to electric motors], you can reduce the volume of travel on your supply route to only [move] fossil fuels for the much heavier vehicles.

 

Q: Could you make an electric version of something like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle?

A: The technology to power a vehicle of that weight exists today. We’re talking [up to] about 10-15 tons; that technology exists now.

If it exists now, you can anticipate that we’re going to have to transition some of this in the next 10 years. And if that’s true, then we have to have a transition plan for the Army to move in this direction.

It should require a very detailed strategy and step by step pathways. It should include starting to build in hooks into our requirements [for new designs]. And then there are other experimentation efforts where we can learn about enterprise-level supply chain decisions.

(Eds. note: We ask all fans of Phillip K. Dick to forgive us for the headline).

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/do-soldiers-dream-of-electric-trucks

Sur le même sujet

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - January 15, 2019

    16 janvier 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - January 15, 2019

    ARMY BAE Systems Land & Armaments LP, York, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $474,084,062 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for system technical support and sustainment system technical support. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 14, 2025. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-19-D-0040). ACC Construction Co. Inc., Augusta, Georgia, was awarded a $30,006,388 firm-fixed-price contract for a Special Operations Forces tactical equipment maintenance facility. Bids were solicited via the internet with six received. Work will be performed in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 5, 2020. Fiscal 2017 and 2018 military construction funds in the amount of $30,006,388 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina, is the contracting activity (W912PM-19-C-0008).  Tecmotiv (USA) Inc.,* Niagara Falls, New York, was awarded a $19,644,207 firm-fixed-price Foreign Military Sales (Egypt) contract for M60 engine overhaul parts package. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Niagara Falls, New York, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 25, 2020. Fiscal 2011 foreign military sales funds in the amount of $19,644,207 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-19-C-0042).  DynCorp International LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, was awarded an $18,537,068 modification (P00205) to contract W58RGZ-13-C-0040 for aviation field maintenance services. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2019. Fiscal 2017 and 2019 aircraft procurement, Army; and operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $18,537,068 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. Mississippi Limestone Corp.,* Friars Point, Mississippi, was awarded an $18,399,991 firm-fixed-price contract for articulated concrete mattress casting at the Mississippi River. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in Delta, Louisiana, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 21, 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $18,399,991 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, is the contracting activity (W912EE-19-C-0002).  Avatar Environmental LLC,* West Chester, Pennsylvania (W912DQ-19-D-3004); GEO Consultants Corp.,* Kevil, Kentucky (W912DQ-19-D-3005); Trevet-Bay West JV II LLC,* San Diego, California (W912DQ-19-D-3006); and TriEco LLC,* Louisville, Kentucky (W912DQ-19-D-3007 ), will compete for each order of the $12,000,000 hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price contract for environmental architect engineer services. Bids were solicited via the internet with 10 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 14, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, is the contracting activity.  Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia, was awarded a $9,742,355 modification (P00030) to contract W911QX-16-C-0012 for support of Saturn Arch Aerial Intelligence System for day and night image collection and exploitation of Improvised Explosive Device “hot spot” areas. Work will be performed in Bridgewater, Virginia, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 16, 2019. Fiscal 2018 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $ 2,062,117 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. BAE Systems Land & Armaments LP, York, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $7,201,316 modification (P00024) to contract W56HZV-17-C-0059 for the maintenance of M88 recovery vehicles, technical data package maintenance and total ownership cost reduction. Work will be performed in York, Pennsylvania, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 18, 2020. Fiscal 2018 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $7,201,316 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.  DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY  ZOLL Medical Corp., Chelmsford, Massachusetts, has been awarded a maximum $400,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for patient monitoring and capital equipment systems and accessories. This was a competitive acquisition with 36 responses received. This is a five-year base contract with one five-year option period. Location of performance is Massachusetts, with a Jan. 13, 2024, performance completion date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2D1-19-D-0011). (Awarded Jan. 14, 2019) Valneva USA Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland, has been awarded a maximum $70,051,600, firm-fixed-price contract for the Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine.  This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 ( c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a one-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Maryland and the U.K., with a Jan. 14, 2020, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2020 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2DP-19-D-0001).  Dental Health Products Inc.,* New Franken, Wisconsin, has been awarded a maximum $37,500,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for dental equipment and accessories for the Defense Logistics Agency electronic catalog. This was a competitive acquisition with 68 responses received; 20 contracts have been awarded to date. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Wisconsin, with a Jan. 13, 2024, performance completion date. Using customers are Department of Defense and other federal organizations. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2DH-19-D-0005). (Awarded Jan. 14, 2019)  NAVY Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded $68,933,454 for cost-plus-incentive fee delivery order 0104 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020).  This order provides for the design, development, documentation, integration, and test of upgrades to the U.S. Reprogramming Laboratory to execute the Mission Data (MD) programming and reprogramming mission for the F-35 Digital Channelized Receiver/Technique Generator and Tuner Insertion Program (DTIP) and non-DTIP configurations.  These efforts are in support of Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps operational aircraft, as well as all training aircraft within the continental U.S. with MD products.  Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (65 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (25 percent); and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in May 2021.  Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps) funding in the amount of $20,000,000 will be obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This order combines purchases for the Air Force ($34,466,727; 50 percent); Navy ($17,233,364; 25 percent), and the Marine Corps ($17,233,363; 25 percent).  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.  C4 Planning Solutions, Blythe, Georgia, is awarded a maximum ceiling $45,488,761 firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract with a five-year ordering period and option to extend services up to six months for tactical systems support and professional engineering services for the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity. This contract contains an option, which if exercised, will bring the contract value to $49,999,196.  Work will be performed at Camp Pendleton, California (41 percent); Okinawa, Japan (15 percent); Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (four percent); Norfolk, Virginia (four percent); Alexandria, Virginia (four percent); Quantico, Virginia (four percent); New Orleans, Louisiana (two percent); and additional various locations outside the continental U.S. (26 percent), and work is expected to be completed by March 6, 2024.  If the option is exercised, work will continue through Sept. 6, 2024.  Fiscal 2017 (Marine Corps) operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $515,910; and fiscal 2019 (Marine Corps) operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $146,903 will be obligated under the initial task order immediately following contract award.  Although expired, the fiscal 2017 contract funds in the amount of $515,910 are available for this effort in accordance with 31 U.S. Code 1558.  The contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with two offers received. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia, is the contract activity (M68909-19-D-7605). AECOM Management Services Inc., Germantown, Maryland, is awarded a $35,162,580 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-price contract resulting from solicitation N00189-18-R-0044 that includes provisions for economic price adjustment to provide third party logistics support services and hazardous material supplies as required by Marine Corp. Pacific and tenant Navy commands in Okinawa, Japan. The contract includes a five-year base ordering period with an option to extend services for a six-month ordering period pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.217-8 which if exercised, the total value of this contract will be $38,965,976. All work will be performed in Okinawa, Japan, and work is expected to be completed February 2024.  If the option is exercised, work will be completed by August 2024. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $768,053; fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $1,211,512; and working capital funds (Navy) in the amount of $138,000 will be obligated at time of award. Operations and maintenance (Navy and Marine Corps) funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured with the solicitation posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website, with two offers received. Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Contracting Department, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity. (N00189-19-D-0001) BAE Systems Hawaii Shipyards Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, was awarded a not-to-exceed $9,576,151 undefinitized contract action modification to previously-awarded contract N00024-14-C-4412 for scheduled Surface Incremental Availability (SIA) on USS Halsey (DDG 97). The scheduled SIA is the opportunity in the ship’s life cycle primarily to conduct structural repairs and alteration to systems. Work will be performed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and is expected to be completed by May 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $4,689,804; and fiscal 2018 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $98,255 will be obligated at time of award. Funds in the amount of $4,689,804 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is the contracting activity. (Awarded Jan. 14, 2019) Global Technical Systems Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Virginia, is awarded an $8,510,970 firm-fixed–price delivery order N00024-19-F-5610 under previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract N00024-14-D-5213 for the procurement of 15 Common Processing System (CPS) Technical Instruction Twelve Hybrid (TI-12H) water-cooled production units for Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program and two CPS TI-12H air-cooled production units for ship self defense systems. The CPS is a computer processing system based on an Open Architecture (OA) design.  CPS consists of the CPS enclosure assembly and three subsystems: the processing subsystem, the storage/extraction subsystem, and the Input / Output (I/O) subsystem.  It is intended to support the computer requirements of various Navy combat systems.  This contract will provide for production, testing and delivery of CPS (water cooled, air cooled, and air-cooled commercial equivalents), spares, and associated engineering services. Work will be performed in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and is expected to be complete by October 2019. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $8,510,970 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. (Awarded Jan. 14, 2019) Lockheed Martin Corp., Baltimore, Maryland, is awarded a fixed-price-incentive firm target modification to previously-awarded contract N00024-18-C-2300 to exercise an option for the construction of one fiscal 2019 littoral combat ship. The specific contract award amount for this ship is considered source-selection sensitive information (see 41 U.S. Code 2101, et seq., Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 and FAR 3.104) and will not be made public at this time. Lockheed Martin will perform and oversee all necessary design, planning, construction and test and trials activities in support of delivery of this ship to the Navy. Work will be performed in Marinette, Wisconsin (40 percent); Washington, District of Columbia (7 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (6 percent); Beloit, Wisconsin (2 percent); Iron Mountain, Michigan (2 percent); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1 percent); Waunakee, Wisconsin (1 percent); Crozet, Virginia (1 percent); Coleman, Wisconsin (1 percent); Monrovia, California (1 percent); and various locations below 1 percent (38 percent), and is expected to be completed by February 2026. Fiscal 2019 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.  *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1732604/source/GovDelivery/  

  • Counterdrone Tech Takes Center Stage In UK Government Strategy

    11 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Counterdrone Tech Takes Center Stage In UK Government Strategy

    By Tony Osborne Britain is taking initial steps to create a mobile national counterdrone capability to protect major events and key parts of the national infrastructure. Although aware of the potential benefits that small unmanned aircraft (UAS) systems can bring to the national economy, the country has also experienced the havoc they can wreak. Last December, sightings of small UAS around the perimeter of London’s Gatwick Airport resulted in the halting of flight operations, disrupting flights and the plans of thousands of travelers in the run-up to Christmas. Yet, despite more than 100 such sightings during the shutdown, police investigations have exhausted their lines of inquiry, no charges were ever brought and Sussex Police, leading the investigation, closed their probe at the end of September. Since then, environmental protesters Extinction Rebellion threatened to use UAS to shut down Heathrow Airport in a bid to disrupt operations, although activists were arrested before they got a chance to try. Drone use in the UK is growing rapidly. According to consultancy PwC, there could be as many as 76,000 commercial and government drones in use in the UK by 2030. In 2014, there were around 400 commercial drone operators in the UK approved by the UK Civil Aviation Authority; there are now over 5,000. The events at Gatwick have acted as a catalyst, prompting the government to get ahead of the threat. In October, the British Home Office published its Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy to help civilian authorities tackle the issues surrounding drones. Along with developing a national counterdrone capability for the police, instead of relying on the military as they had to at Gatwick, the government is looking to update the threat picture of how UAS can be misused. They would then develop what officials call a “full-spectrum” approach in deterring, detecting and disrupting that misuse. Perhaps most crucially, the government will provide greater support to Britain’s fledgling but fast-growing counterdrone industry. As well as developing legislation and regulation for counterdrone technology, the strategy also mentions “incentivizing investments” for the most effective technologies. “Government needs to strike a balance,” says British security minister Brandon Lewis. “We need a security posture that keeps us safe, but it must also recognize the benefits of the legal uses of drones and allow us to reap the fullest rewards of incorporating drone technology into society,” But first, the British government will test and accredit anti-drone technologies to better understand their capabilities and develop a catalog of systems that can be purchased by police forces, security agencies and other government departments. Government officials and industry admit there is no “silver bullet” to protect against all types of UAS. “There is not one specific system or one capability that solves the problem,” said Tony Burnell, CEO of Metis Aerospace, a UK-based developer of drone detection equipment. Burnell made his comments while speaking to a British parliamentary committee about the domestic threat of drones in October. “It has to be a multilayered approach. . . . The counterdrone capabilities in the UK, made by industry, will tackle 99.5% of the drones that are out there,” he said. “There is still the 0.5% of drones that you do not know about and that you will [need to] be keeping up [with] to understand.” Costs of anti-drone equipment also remain prohibitively high. But while military-spec systems to protect an airport are priced at £2-3 million ($3-4 million), that could be overkill and far too expensive for a facility such as a prison. Yet prisons arguably need such equipment most urgently. Home Office figures say there were 284 drone incidents at British prisons in 2016, 319 in 2017 and 168 in 2018, with 165 drones recovered at prisons in 2016-17. The police are not the only ones taking an interest in drone technology. In September, the Royal Air Force (RAF) selected Leonardo to carry out a three-year-long study to inform a future RAF counterdrone capability. Leonardo’s Falcon Shield was one of the systems deployed by the RAF to Gatwick after a police request. The Gatwick incident has already prompted changes in British law. In March, laws stating that drones could not be flown within 1 km (0.6 mi.) of an airfield were replaced with new restrictions banning them from operating within an airfield’s existing aerodrome traffic zone—a radius of 2-2.5 nm around the airfield. It is also now against the law to operate them in 5 X 1-km zones stretching from the thresholds of an airfield/airport’s runway. The UK has introduced legislation that calls on drone operators with systems weighing between 250g-20 kg (0.6-44 lb.) to register them and for the pilots to take an online competency course. Registration, which began on Nov. 5, will become a legal requirement from Nov. 30, with operators receiving an operator registration number they must affix to their drone before it is flown. The strategy says the government is now developing concepts for the future implementation of an unmanned traffic management (UTM) system, but it notes that while UTM technology “will not be delivered in the lifetime of the strategy,” security concerns will be appropriately incorporated in early planning. https://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/counterdrone-tech-takes-center-stage-uk-government-strategy

  • Otan : les dépenses militaires européennes progressent encore en 2020

    22 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

    Otan : les dépenses militaires européennes progressent encore en 2020

    Par Le Figaro avec AFP Les dépenses des pays européens de l'Otan et du Canada en matière de défense vont augmenter pour la sixième année consécutive en 2020, avec un tiers des pays atteignant l'objectif des 2% du PIB, a indiqué mercredi le secrétaire général de l'Otan, Jens Stoltenberg. «Cette année sera la sixième année consécutive de hausse des dépenses militaires par les alliés européens et le Canada, avec une progression réelle de 4,3%. Nous nous attendons à ce que cette tendance se poursuive», a déclaré Jens Stoltenberg lors d'une conférence de presse, à la veille d'une réunion par visioconférence des ministres de la Défense de l'organisation. L'Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord a publié mercredi ses chiffres sur les dépenses de défense de ses membres. D'après ces données, qui ne sont que des estimations pour 2019 et 2020, les États-Unis devraient encore fournir de très loin le plus gros effort budgétaire, avec des dépenses représentant 3,87% de leur PIB. Les pays de l'Otan, Allemagne en tête, sont budgétairement sous la pression du président américain Donald Trump qui leur réclame un effort plus massif pour arriver à l'objectif de dépenses égales à 2% du PIB. Sur les 30 pays membres, 10 se situeraient au-dessus de ce seuil en 2020, dont la Grèce (2,58%), le Royaume-Uni (2,43%), la Pologne (2,30%) et la France (2,11%). Ils n'étaient que trois l'an dernier (États-Unis, Grèce et Royaume-Uni). L'Allemagne resterait encore en dessous (1,57%), tout comme le Canada (1,45%). Les ministres de la Défense des pays de l'Otan doivent se réunir jeudi et vendredi par téléconférence. Parmi les sujets abordés, sera discutée «la juste répartition du fardeau» militaire, a indiqué M. Stoltenberg. https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/otan-les-depenses-militaires-europeennes-progressent-encore-en-2020-20201021

Toutes les nouvelles