Germany plans to buy eight IRIS-T air defence systems for its military - document

Sur le même sujet

• 

  12 mars 2019 | International, Terrestre

  The US Army is preparing for major changes to force structure

  By: Jen Judson Update: This story has been updated to reflect Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley's correct title. WASHINGTON — The Army is preparing to make what it deems as necessary, and major, organizational changes to its force structure within the next five years, according to the Futures and Concepts Center director. “There is going to be a fundamental change in the organizational structure to fight the way we are describing,” Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley told an audience at the Center for a New American Security in Washington on March 4. “The Army has relied on counterinsurgency operations over the past 15 years that depended greatly on the Brigade Combat Team. But now, with a new focus on large-scale ground combat operations anticipated in the future operating environment, “that will require echelons above brigade, all of which will solve unique and distinct problems that a given BCT can't solve by itself,” Wesley said. A new organizational structure is necessary, according to Wesley, to align better with the service's new warfighting doctrine under development — Multidomain Operations or MDO. The Army rolled out the first iteration of its new doctrine over a year ago and debuted a revised version — MDO 1.5 — shortly after the Association of the U.S. Army's annual convention in Washington last fall. The new doctrine addresses how the service plans to operate in the future against adversaries that have learned to engage in provocative behavior in a gray zone that doesn't quite classify as conflict, and who have gone to school on U.S. capabilities, developing equipment and operating concepts that threaten the U.S.'s long-standing capability overmatch. The Army is now focused on ensuring that its capabilities match its new doctrine, standing up a new four-star command in Austin, Texas — Army Futures Command — to accomplish such a goal and syncing its other major commands together to focus on six top modernization priorities. Wesley noted that the organizational realignment needed would “probably be even a bigger problem than the materiel requirements" to create a force designed for multidomain operations. “You will see us seek to build out echelons above brigade — the Division, the Corps, even potentially a field Army — to get into theater that can manage these theater problems that otherwise wouldn't be achieved,” he added. The Army will likely have to make trades across the active and reserve forces, Wesley said, “so we have the ability to have a force posture that can rapidly transition if necessary.” But with all of these other dramatic changes, it's inevitable that the force structure change with it, according to Wesley, and that is going to have to happen sooner rather than later, he stressed. The Army has to “dive in” and start putting plans in place in the next five-year budgeting cycle “because if you want to achieve what the secretary and the chief has said, to be an MDO capable force by 2028, you have to start doing some of these organizational changes early,” Wesley told a group of reporters following the event at CNAS. And organizational changes need to align with the service's plans to field first units with newly modernized equipment and in some cases, units are slated to receive this equipment in very short order, according to Wesley. “You need some place for that stuff to land,” he said. “When you talk about long-range precision fires, for example, having an appropriate theater fires command. When you talk about air-and-missile defense and first unit equipped, what kind of force structure do we have to enable that? And it can't just be at the brigade level ... It has to transcend echelons.” Wesley said while he couldn't discuss specifics yet, he believed evidence of major organizational changes will likely be seen toward the end of the next five-year budget period. The three-star also said he believed the Army would need to increase the level of units stationed abroad. “The National Defense Strategy talks about the contact and blunt forces,” Wesley said. “Contact are those that are in theater all the time — either rotational or permanent — and blunt [forces] are those that can rapidly move into theater as necessary.” Getting the right mix between contact and blunt forces will be necessary, Wesley said. "You have to have contact forces. What we are working on is how to optimize what that balance is. You have to have headquarters and fires commands and that can be a deterrent effect immediately.” Over the next few years, the Army plans to war-game the right mix, but “regardless, I think you are going to find that at some point there will have to be a debate on the degree to which we have forward presence, potentially increased, in the future,” Wesley said. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/03/06/major-army-force-structure-changes-afoot/

• 

  29 juin 2018 | International, C4ISR

  A Senate panel wants to spend an extra $400 million on microelectronics

  By: Daniel Cebul When the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on defense released a summary of their spending priorities June 26, the bill included a significant increase for one emerging technology. The panel recommended setting aside an additional $447 million for microelectronics. Specifically, the committee wanted to ensure the Department of Defense has access to trusted microelectronics and can develop manufacturing processes for next-generation microprocessor chips. To do so, the bill raised the fiscal year 2019 research, development, testing and evaluation budget for microelectronic technology from $169 million in the president's fiscal year 2019 budget request to $616 million. Already, concern about the domestic production of microelectronics is expected to be part of a large defense industrial base review now underway. But what exactly are microelectronics, and why is their development worth so much to DoD? Microelectronic chips are essentially integrated electric circuits that regulate energy consumption, and perform complex computations that enable capabilities like global positioning systems, radar and command and control. Imagine all of the components that go into your computer ― memory, graphics processors, wifi modules, etc ― all on a single silicon chip, called a wafer. eading-edge wafers typically are 300 mm in diameter and loaded with transistors, resistors, insulators and conductors that control the flow of electrons (read electrical energy) across the chip. The smaller and smaller these components are, specifically transistors, the more can be fit on a chip, enabling faster and more efficient processing. Transistors themselves are measured in nanometers (nm), and are unfathomably small to most non-scientists and engineers. One nanometer equates to a billionth of meter! To put that into perspective, the average diameter of a human hair is 75,000 nm. The most cutting-edge transistors used in microelectronics measure between 10 and 7 nm, and are expected to get smaller in coming years. Smaller and smaller transistors will contribute to breakthroughs in “machine learning, data sorting for recognition of events, and countering electromagnetic threats,” according to a Defense Advance Research Project Agency backgrounder. Because Pentagon leaders believe this technology is vital for current and future capabilities, technology officials say it is important DoD can trust microelectronics are reliable and secure from adversary attacks and sabotage. For this reason, DARPA launched the five-year, up to $200 million Electronics Resurgence Initiative in September 2017 “to nurture research in advanced new materials, circuit design tools, and system architectures.” A key thrust of this initiative is partnership with top universities through the Joint University Microelectronics Program, or JUMP. The program enlists top researchers to work on proejcts like cognitive computing, secure cellular infrastructure to support autonomous vehicles and intelligent highways and other technologies enabled by microelectronics. Under the Senate defense subcommittee's markup, ERI received an additional $30 million to help “reestablish U.S. primacy in assured microelectronics technology.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2018/06/28/a-senate-panel-wants-to-spend-an-extra-400-million-on-microelectronics/

• 

  9 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  New policy addresses 3D parts for Army aircraft

  By Courtesy As the Army explores the potential of some advanced manufacturing methods and 3D-printed parts to maintain and sustain its aviation fleet, recently published guidance aims to strike a balance between safety, improvements to readiness and escalating costs. Advanced manufacturing refers to new ways of making existing products and the production of new products using advances in technology. Advanced manufacturing includes additive manufacturing, a process of joining materials to make parts from 3D-model data. Additive manufacturing differs from the traditional subtractive process that cuts away material to shape and produce parts. The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command recently published a policy memorandum addressing advanced manufacturing for Army aircraft parts, components and support products. “Evolving technologies create a unique challenge as we determine the airworthiness of parts when the data is immature, incomplete or even non-existent,” said AMCOM Commander Maj. Gen. Todd Royar, who serves as the Army's airworthiness authority, responsible for ensuring the safety of the service's aircraft components. As enduring aircraft, like the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, continue in service, the supply system with face challenges with obsolescence, meaning parts that are difficult to acquire or receive no bids from potential vendors to manufacture. As the Army keeps pace with technology, advanced manufacturing creates opportunities to optimize long-term sustainment efforts. The Army established a partnership recently with Wichita State University's National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) to create a “digital twin” of an aging Black Hawk model. “One of the primary tasks in this effort is to convert all legacy 2D drawings of this aircraft into modern 3D parametric models,” said John Tomblin, senior Vice-President for Industry and Defense Programs and Executive Director of NIAR at Wichita State University. “This will allow the Army to source parts that are out of production as well as use advanced techniques, such as additive manufacturing, to produce parts.” The digital twin opens a door to the 3D modeling and more opportunities to use parts made through additive manufacturing. The NIAR project is not the Army's only effort. Army Aviation is already using advanced manufacturing methods and 3D-printed parts to solve specific challenges. When several CH-47 helicopters experienced structural cracks at a certain portion of the frame assembly, an initial solution was to replace the entire frame assembly. “Replacing the entire assembly is a time-consuming task that also poses logistical challenges because replacements are difficult to obtain,” said AMCOM's Aviation Branch Maintenance Officer, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Michael Cavaco. Instead, engineers designed a solution to restore the cracked frames to their original strength by creating repair fittings using Computer-Aided Design models. “After five iterations of 3D-printing prototypes, test fit and model adjustments, a final design solution was achieved,” Cavaco said. Additionally, 3D printers have created several tools and shop aids that have benefitted the field. Many of these stand-alone items that support maintenance operations are authorized within Army technical manuals, depot maintenance work requirements or similar publications. While too early to predict overall cost and time savings, the advantages of advanced manufacturing are significant. The use of advanced manufactured parts will eliminate wait time on back-ordered parts that, ultimately, delay repairs. A key focus of AMCOM's AM policy is on inserting evolving technologies into enduring designs that have relied on traditional manufacturing processes throughout their acquisition lifecycle. However, future Aviation are benefiting as well from advanced manufacturing. The Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) includes a number of advanced manufacturing elements. “ITEP benefits from advanced manufacturing include reduced cost, reduced weight, increased durability, and enhanced performance when compared to traditional manufacturing methods,” said Col. Roger Kuykendall, the project manager for Aviation Turbine Engines. “The benefits of AM stem from the unique capability to produce more complex hardware shapes while simultaneously reducing part count.” The fine details of airworthiness expectations asserted in this policy were crafted by a team of engineers at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation and Missile Center, led by Chris Hodges, the current acting associate director for Airworthiness-Technology. Hodges said the new policy was drafted after his team collaborated with stakeholders from across the aviation enterprise, reaching across Army organizations and out to sister services and the Federal Aviation Administration. “We considered a lot of input and ultimately organized expectations and requirements by category, spanning from tools and shop aids to critical safety items,” Hodges said. “The resulting policy sets a solid foundation with room to grow and fill in details as the story evolves.” For Army aviation applications, advanced-manufactured parts and components will be managed under six categories that range from articles that support maintenance operations to those aviation critical safety items, whose failure would result in unacceptable risk. The designated categories prescribe for engineers and manufacturers the allowed materials and appropriate testing methodology for each particular part. The new guidance is not intended as a replacement for other existing policies that address advanced manufacturing. “We intend to be in concert with Army policies and directives that pertain to readiness, maintenance and sustainment,” Royar said. “Our policy provides a deliberate approach to ensure airworthiness and safety while determining where research and efforts may best supplement the supply chain and improve performance while balancing cost.” AMCOM Command Sgt. Major Mike Dove acknowledged the methodology must continue to mature in multiple areas before confidence grows in the ability to measure airworthiness qualification requirements for advanced-manufactured parts. “We fully support the maturation requirements for advanced-manufacturing technology, but not at the expense of flight safety,” Dove said. As Army aviation continues to pursue and include advanced-manufacturing methods, Royar noted the potential impact as the technology evolves. “Advanced manufacturing touches units, depots and the broader supply chain,” Royar said. “As we sustain our enduring aircraft and look to future systems, it is important that we keep pace with this and other emerging technologies for the sake of the warfighter.” https://www.army.mil/article/238868/new_policy_addresses_3d_parts_for_army_aircraft