Eutelsat uses SpaceX rocket to launch first satellites after merger

Sur le même sujet

• 

  20 janvier 2021 | International, Naval

  Thales NS50 Radar to equip the Belgium Navy and the Royal Netherlands Navy Next Generation Mine Counter Measures Vessels (MCMV)

  January 18, 2021 - The navies of Belgium and the Netherlands rely on Thales, Naval Group and KERSHIP shipyard to equip the 12 next generation Mine Counter Measures Vessels with NS50 radars for Air & Surface Surveillance with Fire Control capabilities. Through this contract for its new NS50 radar, Thales is proud to serve both the navies of Belgium and the Netherlands through the next generation MCMV contract with Kership - a joint venture between Naval Group and Piriou. The NS50 radar introduces a complete and high level of self-protection capability against air and surface threats for high value ships. The NS50 radar is a game changer: it is the world's first compact multi-mission 4D AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar available in the market for smaller vessels offering both Air and Surface surveillance with missile and Gun Fire control. The NS50 provides for the first time a complete and superior level of self-protection capability against air and surface threats for this category of high value MCM vessels. A strategic choice for small to medium vessels, the NS50 offers dual functions between air and surface surveillance and fire control. The nature of threats faced by Navies has never been more varied nor more challenging, ranging from next generation anti-ship missiles, robotic warfare and swarm attacks, to electronic warfare (jamming) as well as, overall, having to operate in a simultaneously conventional, asymmetric and hybrid threat environment. Time and quality of information are critical when facing this new array of unpredictable simultaneous threats. The NS50 provides maximum time on target for forces to evaluate the threat and take countermeasures while, at the same time, understanding what is around them to safeguard the ship and to protect their own allied forces. The NS50 is the world's most compact, affordable 4D multi-function naval radar in the market. It offers superior air and surface detection, tracking and classification performances providing highly accurate 4D target information required for rapid acquisition by short-range “fire and forget” Surface-to-Air-Missile Systems as well as fire control of ship-borne artillery against surface targets. It can defend against Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), low slow flying object, surface targets and in combination with small to medium caliber gun system. A fully software-defined sensor, the NS50 features a modular and scalable hardware architecture, making it equally suitable for combat boats, Offshore Patrol Vessels, MCMVs, auxiliaries and various other platforms. No other radar in this class up offers the NS50's flexibility and range of features, which are similar to those that do equip larger sized ships. Its full digital design implies that upgrades are possible at any moment and at any place and that, software modifications are simple for integrating new features. The NS50 meets today's cybersecurity requirements. The NS50 is part of the NS family of radars already operational within the Royal Netherlands Navy, providing enhanced situational awareness and contributing to regional stability in various parts of the world. “Navies are facing more complex, smaller, agile and faster moving simultaneous threats. The compact NS50 is a game changer – it brings the benefit of multi-mission air and surface surveillance, as well as fire control to combat boats, MCM vessels, OPA's and various other platforms. We are proud to work with Naval Group and Kership and supply an innovative radar to the Belgium and Netherland Navies for operational advantage”. Serge Adrian, Senior Vice-President Surface Radar activities, Thales. View source version on Thales Group: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/group/journalist/press_release/ns50-radar-equip-belgium-navy-and-royal-netherlands-navy-next

• 

  24 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  America’s bomber force is facing a crisis

  By: Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (ret.) and Douglas Birkey The nation faces a bomber crisis, and it is time to openly acknowledge the scale and scope of the problem. Tasked with deterrence and, if necessary, striking targets around the globe, Air Force crews operating these aircraft afford the nation's security leaders unique options best embodied in the phrase: anytime, anyplace. Despite the criticality of this mission, the Air Force currently operates the smallest, oldest fleet of bombers since its 1947 founding. No other service or ally has this capability, which places an imperative on this finite force. The service's recent announcement that it will be ending its continuous bomber presence in Guam further amplifies the precarious state of bombers. It is a stark warning to senior leaders in the Pentagon, in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill that the Air Force is “out of Schlitz” when it comes to the critical missions they perform. Bombers are unique instruments of power. They can strike targets with large volumes of kinetic firepower without requiring access to foreign bases and without projecting the vulnerability associated with regionally based land or sea forces. The striking power of a single bomber is immense. In fact, B-1Bs flying missions against ISIS in the opening days of Operation Inherent Resolve were able to carry more munitions than that delivered by an entire carrier air wing. Stealth bombers can penetrate enemy air defenses, depriving mobile targets of sanctuary. They can also carry large bunker-buster munitions required to eliminate deeply buried and hardened facilities. Bomber aircraft are also cheaper to operate on a per-mission basis when compared to alternate options, like ships, large packages of smaller strike aircraft or standoff missiles. The erosion of the bomber force is no secret. At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Air Force possessed 400 bombers arrayed to fight the Soviet Union. Today, it has just 157, with a plan to cut a further 17 in the fiscal 2021 budget submission. Air Force efforts to modernize the bomber force a decade ago were thwarted within the Department of Defense by an excessive near-term focus on counterinsurgency operations. Bombers are requested by combatant commands on a continual basis given the concurrent threats posed by peer adversaries, mid-tier nations like Iran and North Korea, and hostile nonstate actors. The Air Force knows this mission area is stretched too thin, and that is precisely why in 2018 leaders called for an additional five bomber squadrons in “The Air Force We Need” force structure assessment. Well-understood risk exists with operating a high-demand, low-density inventory for too long. The B-1B force, which makes up over one-third of America's bomber capacity, offers a highly cautionary tale in this regard. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the service retired 26 of these aircraft to free up modernization funds, which subsequently were snatched away from the bomber mission area for other uses. For the next two decades, the Air Force flew the B-1B in a nearly continuous string of intense combat deployments. Sustainment funding was under-resourced, which further wore down the B-1B force. Last summer, B-1B readiness rates plummeted below 10 percent — effectively putting them out of commission. As Air Force Global Strike Command Commander Gen. Tim Ray explained: “We overextended the B-1Bs.” It was a toxic formula of too much mission demand and too few airplanes. Air Force leaders continually signaled concern, but their calls for help went unanswered. The normal solution to this sort of a challenge would be straight-forward: Go buy more airplanes. However, operational B-21s will not be in production until the latter 2020s. The Air Force is asking to retire 17 B-1s to free up resources to nurse the remaining aircraft along as a stopgap measure. COVID-19 emergency spending and corresponding downward pressure on future defense spending are only going to aggravate the complexity of this juggling act with mission demand, available force structure and readiness. Whether world events will align with these circumstances is yet to be seen. It was in this context that the Air Force decided to end its continuous bomber presence on Guam. Launched in 2004 to deter adversaries like China and North Korea and to reassure regional allies, the mission has been a tremendous success. It clearly communicated U.S. readiness to act decisively when U.S. and allied interests were challenged. Ending continuous bomber presence in the Pacific now sends the opposite message, just as the region grows more dangerous. This is a decision with significant risk, yet it is an outcome compelled by past choices resulting in a bomber force on the edge. The path forward begins with admitting the nation has a bomber shortfall. Retiring more aircraft exacerbates the problem. Nor is this just an Air Force problem. Bombers are national assets essential to our security strategy and must be prioritized accordingly. If other services have excess funds to invest in ideas like a 1,000-mile-range cannon when thousands of strike aircraft, various munitions and remotely piloted aircraft can fill the exact same mission requirements, it is time for a roles and missions review to direct funding toward the most effective, efficient options. Bombers would compete well in such an assessment. Ultimately, the solution demands doubling down on the B-21 program. There comes a point where you cannot do more with less. Given the importance of bombers to the nation, rebuilding the bomber force is not an option — it is an imperative. Retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem served as a fighter pilot and held various command positions. He concluded his service as the director of plans, policy and strategy at North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command. He is currently the director of studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, where Douglas Birkey is the executive director. Birkey researches issues relating to the future of aerospace and national security, and he previously served as the Air Force Association's director of government relations. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/23/americas-bomber-force-is-facing-a-crisis/

• 

  26 juin 2018 | International, Naval

  Future US Navy weapons will need lots of power. That’s a huge engineering challenge.

  David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is convinced that the next generation of ships will need to integrate lasers, electromagnetic rail guns and other power-hungry weapons and sensors to take on peer competitors in the coming decades. However, integrating futuristic technologies onto existing platforms, even on some of the newer ships with plenty of excess power capacity, will still be an incredibly difficult engineering challenge, experts say. Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager who worked on the DDG Flight III, told the audience at last week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium that adding extra electric-power capacity in ships currently in design was a good idea, but that the weapons and systems of tomorrow will pose a significant challenge to naval engineers when it comes time to back-fit them to existing platforms. “Electrical architecture on ships is hard,” Vandroff said. Vandroff considered adding a several-megawatt system to a ship with plenty of power to spare, comparing it with simultaneously turning on everything in a house. “When you turn everything on in your house that you can think of, you don't make a significant change to the load for [the power company],” Vandroff explained. “On a ship, if you have single loads that are [a] major part of the ship's total load, [it can be a challenge]. This is something we had to look at for DDG Flight III where the air and missile defense radar was going to be a major percentage of the total electric load ― greater than anything that we had experienced in the previous ships in the class. That's a real technical challenge. “We worked long and hard at that in order to get ourselves to a place with Flight III where we were confident that when you turned things on and off the way you wanted to in combat, you weren't going to light any of your switchboards on fire. That was not a back-of-the-envelope problem, that was a lot of folks in the Navy technical community ... doing a lot of work to make sure we could get to that place, and eventually we did.” In order to get AMDR, or SPY-6, installed on the DDG design, Vandroff and the team at the DDG-51 program had to redesign nearly half the ship — about 45 percent all told. Even on ships with the extra electric-power capacity, major modifications might be necessary, he warned. “We're going to say that in the future we are going to be flexible, we are going to have a lot of extra power,” Vandroff said. “That will not automatically solve the problem going forward. If you have a big enough load that comes along for a war-fighting application or any other application you might want, it is going to take technical work and potential future modification in order to get there.” Even the powerhouse Zumwalt class will struggle with new systems that take up a large percentage of the ship's power load, Vandroff said. “Take DDG-1000 ― potentially has 80-odd megawatts of power. If you have a 5- or 6-megawatt load that goes on or off, that is a big enough percentage of total load that it's going to be accounted for. Electrical architecture in the future is still an area that is going to require a lot of effort and a lot of tailoring, whatever your platform is, to accommodate those large loads,” he said. In 2016, when the Navy was planning to install a rail gun on an expeditionary fast transport vessel as a demonstration, service officials viewed the electric-power puzzle as the reason the service has not moved more aggressively to field rail gun on the Zumwalt class. Then-director of surface warfare Rear Adm. Pete Fanta told Defense News that he wanted to move ahead with a rail gun demonstration on the JHSV because of issues with the load. “I would rather get an operational unit out there faster than do a demonstration that just does a demonstration,” Fanta said, “primarily because it will slow the engineering work that I have to do to get that power transference that I need to get multiple repeatable shots that I can now install in a ship.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/24/future-navy-weapons-will-need-lots-power-thats-a-huge-engineering-challenge/