26 juin 2018 | International, Naval

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

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/

Sur le même sujet

  • Navy satellite system approved for expanded use

    6 août 2018 | International, Naval, C4ISR

    Navy satellite system approved for expanded use

    By: Maddy Longwell   U.S. Strategic Command has approved the Navy's new narrowband satellite communication system for expanded operational use, which could begin as early as this fall, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command announced Aug. 2. “MUOS' acceptance for operational use is an important milestone for the Navy, and it's one step closer for significant communications improvements for all our forces,” Rear Adm. Carl Chebi, the Navy's program executive officer for space systems, said in the release. The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS), built by Lockheed Martin, is a five-satellite constellation, which includes four operational satellites and an on-orbit spare, that works with ground relays to operate like a global military cellular network. The first satellite launched in 2012. The system can transmit voice, video and mission data on an Internet Protocol based system that can connect to military networks. Users can connect to Department of Defense communications networks such as the Global Information Grid and Defense Switched Network. Full Article: https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2018/08/03/navy-satellite-system-approved-for-expanded-use

  • Navy Mulling How to Make Surface Fleet Flexible, Lethal

    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

  • GA-ASI Demonstrates AI Driven Targeting Computer with AFRL’s Agile Condor Pod

    8 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    GA-ASI Demonstrates AI Driven Targeting Computer with AFRL’s Agile Condor Pod

    General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., with the support of SRC Inc., successfully integrated and flew the Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) Agile Condor Pod on an MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Aircraft at GA-ASI's Flight Test and Training Center in Grand Forks, North Dakota The Agile Condor Pod provides on-board high-speed computer processing coupled with machine learning algorithms to detect, correlate, identify, and track targets of interest. With this capability, the MQ-9 is able to identify objects autonomously utilizing its on-board Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) sensor and GA-ASI's Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Defense contractor SRC, Inc. developed the Agile Condor system for the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), delivering the first pod in 2016. It's not clear whether the Air Force conducted any flight testing of the system on other platforms before hiring General Atomics to integrate it onto the Reaper in 2019. The service had previously said that it expected to take the initial pod aloft in some fashion before the end of 2016. High-powered computing at the edge enables autonomous target detection, identification and nomination at extended ranges and on-board processing reduces communication bandwidth requirements to share target information with other platforms. This is an important step towards greater automation, autonomous target detection, and rapid decision-making. GA-ASI will continue to work with AFRL to refine the capability and foster its transition to operational constructs that will improve warfighters' ability to operate in contested or denied environments. “Sensors have rapidly increased in fidelity, and are now able to collect vast quantities of data, which must be analyzed promptly to provide mission critical information,” an SRC white paper on Agile Condor from 2018 explains. “Stored data [physically on a drone] ... creates an unacceptable latency between data collection and analysis, as operators must wait for the RPA [remotely piloted aircraft] to return to base to review time sensitive data.” “In-mission data transfers, by contrast, can provide data more quickly, but this method requires more power and available bandwidth to send data,” the white paper continues. “Bandwidth limits result in slower downloads of large data files, a clogged communications link and increased latency that could allow potential changes in intel between data collection and analysis. The quantities of data being collected are also so vast, that analysts are unable to fully review the data received to ensure actionable information is obtained.” This is all particularly true for drones equipped with wide-area persistent surveillance systems, such as the Air Force's Gorgon Stare system, which you can read about in more detail here, that grab immense amounts of imagery that can be overwhelming for sensor operators and intelligence analysts to scour through. Agile Condor is designed to parse through the sensor data a drone collects first, spotting and classifying objects of interest and then highlighting them for operators back at a control center or personnel receiving information at other remote locations for further analysis. Agile Condor would simply discard “empty” imagery and other data that shows nothing it deems useful, not even bothering to forward that on. “This selective ‘detect and notify' process frees up bandwidth and increases transfer speeds, while reducing latency between data collection and analysis,” SRC's 2018 white paper says. “Real time pre-processing of data with the Agile Condor system also ensures that all data collected is reviewed quickly, increasing the speed and effectiveness with which operators are notified of actionable information.” At least at present, the general idea is still to have a human operator in the ‘kill chain' making decisions about how to act on such information, including whether or not to initiate a lethal strike. The Air Force has been emphatic about ensuring that there will be an actual person in the loop at all times, no matter how autonomous a drone or other unmanned vehicle may be in the future. An Air Force Research Laboratory briefing slide showing a concept of operations for how a drone might use Agile Condor to sense and avoid threats autonomously Still, developments such as Agile Condor will significantly reduce the amount of necessary human interaction in various parts of the targeting process, as well as general intelligence collection and initial analysis, and potentially much more, as time goes on. It could also fuse various forms of sensor data and other available intelligence together to specifically weight possible areas of interest over others and prioritize certain targets. The Air Force has also said that this system could use these capabilities to enable drones to navigate and detect and avoid potential threats automatically, including at times when its links to a control center or the GPS satellite navigation system are disrupted or blocked entirely. Sources: Press Release; The Drive https://www.uasvision.com/2020/09/07/ga-asi-demonstrates-ai-driven-targeting-computer-with-afrls-agile-condor-pod/

Toutes les nouvelles