Future Defense Task Force: Scrap obsolete weapons and boost AI

Sur le même sujet

• 

  21 mai 2020 | International, Naval

  A fleeting advantage: No time to lose for US Navy’s unmanned ambitions

  By: Rear Adm. Nevin Carr (ret.) There has been no shortage of debate lately about the future size and shape of the U.S. Navy in an era of great power competition. Through the fog of competing priorities, fiscal constraints and a growing list of force architecture studies, one thing seems certain: The future Navy will include autonomous ships in some form. These vessels (it's not even clear they'll be called “ships”) will not replace the Navy's highly capable combatants, but they will extend their fighting horizons and deepen their magazines to increase combat power. There is an urgent need to build trust before the Navy can safely and effectively integrate this emerging technology. While the debate rages in Washington, the Navy's autonomous workhorse, Sea Hunter, is quietly approaching four years and 30,000 miles of underway experimentation and risk reduction. More than half of those miles have been sailed under autonomous self-control. As with any new technology, lessons are learned along the way. Navy Assistant Secretary James Geurts put it best: To embrace innovation, we must “learn fast and act fast,” to “press the boundaries” and “expect failure” with appropriate judgement and measured risk. Interestingly, many of the lessons with Sea Hunter have involved issues related to basic components like filters, switches and sensors that were not originally designed for autonomous operation. Meanwhile, the underlying autonomy has proven to be remarkably resilient and mature. The good news is that these lessons present solvable challenges. No magic is required. Last year, the Navy sent Sea Hunter from San Diego, California, to Hawaii and back as part of a major fleet exercise. There were lessons learned along the way, but by the return transit, Sea Hunter made the entire 2,000-mile voyage untouched over nine days. This was a major success, and prompted the Navy to plan for a similar event in 2020. That exercise, unfortunately, had to be scaled back due to the impacts of COVID-19. With $200 million and four years invested, the Navy is well down a learning curve that is building the trust necessary to underpin fleet integration of unmanned surface vessels, or USV. This head start is precious and must not be wasted. While USVs are not yet ready for complex roles in close proximity with maneuvering ships, they will soon be ready to fulfill independent missions. By taking a “crawl-walk-run” approach, the Navy can realize operational benefits in the near term while continuing to mature the technology and spiral in increasingly complex behaviors. USV technology is maturing rapidly. Ironically, the main obstacles are not technological. Despite some in the Navy leaning forward, they're largely cultural and programmatic. “Optional manning,” for example, might provide a level of comfort for developers, but the real effect is to increase cost, consume precious space and soften the imperative for pursuing fully autonomous capability. Consider what the Global Hawk or Triton UAVs would look like today, and how many would exist, if the services had insisted they be “optionally manned.” Minimal or optional manning makes sense if weapons are involved, for security and maintenance, but surveillance and reconnaissance USVs will need to optimize every inch and every dollar so they can be fielded in sufficient numbers as the eyes and ears of the fleet. The late Navy captain, Wayne Hughes, wrote that victory at sea often goes to the one who can “fire effectively first.” Unmanned surface vessels can help the fleet do just that. The U.S. Navy has a precious head start, and we should press that advantage by putting near-term capability to sea, while steadily maturing and incorporating more complex behaviors in stride. There's no time to lose. Retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Nevin Carr currently serves as the Navy strategic account executive and vice president at Leidos. He previously held the position of chief of naval research in the service. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/15/a-fleeting-advantage-no-time-to-lose-for-us-navys-unmanned-ambitions

• 

  20 juin 2019 | International, Naval

  Navy Mulling How to Make Surface Fleet Flexible, Lethal

  By: Otto Kreisher WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel of senior Navy civilian officials said the planning efforts for the future combat fleet was focused on making the fleet more flexible, interoperable and lethal. There also is an emphasis on open architecture to make it easier, quicker and cheaper to upgrade combat systems, they said. Those priorities would reduce the cost of sustaining the fleet going forward, the officials said at the American Society of Naval Engineers' annual Technology, Systems & Ship symposium on June 19. Michael Stewart, deputy director for integrated warfare systems, said his job was to look at the available capabilities across all the different surface platforms to make the fleet more capable and lethal. He also would ensure that all requirements going forward were clearly tied to the National Defense Strategy, since “we can't afford to fund everything.” John Hootman, the deputy director for surface warfare, said he was looking at the architecture for the future surface combatants in the 2030-2040 timeframe, when the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and some of the early Arleigh Burke destroyers would be retiring. But, he said, “we can't know what we'll need until we know how we'll fight.” In response to a question, Hootman praised the creation of the Surface Development Squadron, which will help in that effort to determine how the future fleet would fight. Hootman also emphasized the need to look at capabilities across the fleet, not at specific platforms, to promote commonality across the fleet, including a common combat system that could equip the whole range of surface combatants and even the amphibious ships. But that focus on common systems also could apply to the hull, mechanical and electrical elements of future ships. “The push for commonality is key.” Another official extended that quest to communications systems, arguing that every different circuit in the fleet reduces capacity, flexibility and the ability to integrate operations in the strike group. Steven Dries, filling in for Rear Adm. Steven Pardoe, director of integrated warfare, noted that the capabilities that ships would need in the future will change, which makes it all the more important to field systems that can be modernized with software changes, rather than having to tear out hardware. Hootman stressed the same thing as a way to more efficiently modernize ships and gain commonality. He also cited the savings in training sailors to operate and maintain systems that are common across platforms. https://news.usni.org/2019/06/19/navy-mulling-how-to-make-surface-fleet-flexible-lethal

• 

  17 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial

  The drone defense dilemma: How unmanned aircraft are redrawing battle lines

  By: Tom Kington ROME — First there was the video from Libya of a Turkish drone destroying a Russian Pantsir missile defense system. Next came the veteran S-300 air defense system — also Russian — being taken out in Nagorno-Karabakh by an Israeli-built Harop loitering munition. In the conflicts in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh last year, unmanned platforms often made short work of the ground-based systems designed to neutralize them, paving the way for easy attacks on vulnerable troops. What is more, experts say, is that the balance of power between drones and air defense systems is shaping up to be a key to global wars in the near future. “Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh and also Syria have just showed us that if a fielded force cannot protect its airspace, then the large scale use of UAVs can make life extremely dangerous,” said Justin Bronk, an air force research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in England. Turkey's Bayraktar TB2 armed drone grabbed the headlines during the Libya conflict last year, which saw Turkey deploy the platform to defend the U.N.-backed Tripoli government against strongman Khalifa Hifter, who relied on Russian Pantsir systems. Able to fire their Roketsan munitions from outside the range of the Russian systems, the TB2s scored hits, helping stop Hifter's advance. “Turkey also sent in engineers who improved the software of the drones on the fly, while there was no similar learning curve with the Chinese UAVs operated by the UAE to assist Hifter,” said Jalel Harchaoui at the Switzerland-based Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. “The bold and effective use of TB2s in Nagorno-Karabakh in October was made possible by the previous success in Libya,” he added. An enclave belonging to Azerbaijan but governed by breakaway ethnic Armenians, Nagorno-Karabakh has been a flashpoint between Azerbaijan and Armenia for years. It exploded in a brief and bloody war between September and November. Turkey, which backed Azerbaijan, reportedly sent in UAV trainers ahead of the conflict. TB2s alongside Israeli loitering munitions were soon racking up successes, with Dutch warfare research group Oryx reporting 134 Armenian tanks destroyed compared to 22 lost by Azerbaijan. “Turkey built up its UAV expertise after leasing Israeli UAVs, then put that expertise to use building its own after frustrations over the limits placed on its use of the Israeli systems,” Bronk said. “The TB2 has a similar aerodynamic profile to the Heron, while the Turkish Anka UAV is similar to the Hermes 450.” Manufacturer Bayraktar has sold the TB2 to Qatar and Ukraine, while Serbia is eyeing a purchase, raising the TB2′s profile as a competitor to the Chinese Wing Loong II, 50 of which have been exported. “China and Turkey are vying for sales, which begs the question: Why doesn't Russia have the equivalent of a TB2 to sell? I am very surprised they are almost absent in this market,” Harchaoui said. The drone's contribution to the hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh came with a price, as Canada suspended arms exports to Turkey amid claims the TB2 contained Canadian parts, while a U.K. firm supplying parts to the drone also canceled its contract. A number of nations, including the U.K., are meanwhile beefing up their defenses for ground forces, said Bronk. “In light of this threat, the British Army has recently ordered a short/medium-range [surface-to-air missile] system called Sky Sabre. If deployed forward in significant numbers, it should dramatically reduce the Army's vulnerability to both surveillance and attack by hostile UAVs in situations where friendly air cover is unavailable,” he said. Drones are not, however, invulnerable, he added. “U.S. and British Reapers and Predators in Syria had lots of problems with Russian electronic warfare. Since the Reaper can be targeted, you can imagine that less sophisticated platforms can be more easily affected,” he said. Bronk expects that more militaries will spend more money on air defense to balance out the drone threat — “particularly countries which don't have strong air forces.” “One option is the Russian SA-17 system, which has a 75-kilometer range compared to the 10 kilometers of TB2 missiles, or the cheaper and more contained SA-15 with a 10-kilometer range. Western products include the [National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System] NASAMS, which already helps to defend Washington, D.C., with a roughly 15-kilometer range and the NASAMS 2 with a 30- to 40-kilometer range,” he said. Peter Roberts, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, said the world is waking up to the reality of modern warfare. “For a while there was the romantic view that either drones or tanks or missiles would win wars on their own,” he said. “There is no silver bullet on the battlefield, and this is an era which is rediscovering that.” Roberts added that urban warfare is also undergoing a revival, as is the art of deception in war. “Whether it's the Russians in Ukraine or the Iranians, the use of decoys is back — something we once knew about, then forgot in the 1990s.” The world is also returning to an era of proxy wars, he said, from Libya to Nagorno-Karabakh to Yemen. “That means wars fought on the edge of great powers using mercenaries and sponsored guerilla groups and insurgents,” he said. “It also means more sophisticated weapons in the hands of smaller, nonstate groups like the Houthis in Yemen using cruise and ballistic missiles and drones. It is potentially very nasty.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/02/15/the-drone-defense-dilemma-how-unmanned-aircraft-are-redrawing-battle-lines/