14 janvier 2019 | International, Terrestre

Here are the four prizes Textron Systems is watching in 2019

By:

WASHINGTON — Textron Systems is focusing on the U.S. Army this year, with its chief executive naming four unmanned and small arms programs with the service as the company's “need to win” items in 2019.

Speaking to reporters Jan. 10, Textron President and CEO Lisa Atherton laid out the company's top priorities:

1. Squad Mobility Equipment Transport

With its recent acquisition of Howe & Howe Technologies, Textron finds itself a player in the Army's Squad Mobility Equipment Transport competition.

The Army wants to buy a robotic equipment carrier that troops can load with their gear, and Howe & Howe's tracked RS2-H1 robot is competing alongside three other companies for the contract.

“We believe that program will progress this year, and we look forward to moving that to low-rate production,” Atherton said.

The other competitors undergoing tests with the Army and Marine Corps are the Polaris MRZR X, a four-wheeled vehicle based on the Polaris MRZR currently in service with the Marines; the General Dynamics four-wheel drive Multi-Utility Tactical Transport; and the six-wheeled HDT Global Hunter WOLF, or Wheeled Offload Logistics Follower, Army Times reported last year.

Each company delivered prototypes to two Army infantry brigade combat teams and a Marine Corps unit for tests last year.

“They asked us to deliver eight vehicles and then just give them to the soldiers and let the soldiers do what they will with them and basically try to break them,” Atherton said.

The vehicles have now come back to Textron in good working condition, which Atherton said is a “testament to the robustness of that capability.”

After a year of tests, the Army will make a decision on the way forward with the program, which could involve a downselect to a single SMET provider, Army Times has reported.

2. Robotic combat vehicle

As the Army looks to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with what the service is calling the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, it is also hoping to develop an unmanned tank that can accompany it into battle as a robotic “wingman.”

Again, Textron's acquisition of Howe & Howe gives the company an entry point into the competition, Atherton said.

“We believe that the Ripsaw is tailor-made for that,” she said, referring to the light unmanned tank developed by Howe & Howe. “So this year we will be focused on responding to the [requests for proposals] that come out for the prototypes.”

Ripsaw's appearance on the show “Jay Leno's Garage” attracted Atherton's attention to Howe & Howe and laid the foundation for the company's eventual acquisition. The robotic tank has been featured in numerous TV and movie spots, including the film “Mad Max: Fury Road.” The Army previously tested it at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

Atherton said Textron will make investments to improve the survivability of Ripsaw, as well as add “other innovations.”

Brig. Gen. David Lesperance, who is leading the NGCV Cross-Functional Team, said in March that both NGCV and robot combat vehicle prototypes will be ready for soldier evaluations by 2020, with follow-on prototypes ready by 2022 and 2024.

3. Future tactical unmanned aerial system

As the Army looks to replace its RQ-7 Shadow drones, it's testing a number of small, nondevelopmental unmanned aerial systems with the hopes of buying something off the shelf.

As part of that effort, Textron was chosen to demonstrate Aerosonde HQ at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, last month, Atherton said. Aerosonde HQ is a version of Textron's small Aerosonde UAS and includes a kit that allows it to take off and land vertically.

“Our team widely exceeded the threshold requirements,” she said. “So we're very proud of what we were able to do: very rapidly integrate those techniques and procedures and technologies into the Aerosonde to be able to provide that to the Army for the future tactical UAS.”

4. Next Generation Squad Weapons

Textron also believes it has strong offerings for the Army's Next Generation Squad Weapons effort, an umbrella program to replace soldiers' small arms, Atherton said.

Reducing the weight of small arms is a major goal of the program, and Textron previously developed case-telescoped weapons it claims are lighter in weight and more lethal than current weaponry.

“We believe we are the leaders in the case-telescoped prototypes for the Army's next-generation squad weapon with our lightweight small arms technologies,” Atherton said.

The company showcased a 5.56mm light machine gun variant and a 6.5mm caseless service rifle variant at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual meeting in 2017, Army Times reported.

The service has awarded contracts to Textron; FN America, LLC; General Dynamics; PCP Tactical; and Sig Sauer to build prototypes of a Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle, or NGSAR. The prototypes are due to be delivered this year. That weapon would replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which fires 5.56mm rounds.

The program also seeks to find a replacement for the M4, which it calls the Next Generation Squad Weapon Rifle, or NGSW-Rifle. Both NGSW-Rifle and NGSAR will fire 6.8mm rounds.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/01/11/here-are-the-four-prizes-textron-systems-is-watching-in-2019

Sur le même sujet

  • Jumping into algorithmic warfare: US Army aviation tightens kill chain with networked architecture

    9 septembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Jumping into algorithmic warfare: US Army aviation tightens kill chain with networked architecture

    By: Jen Judson NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION CHINA LAKE, Calif. — In the skies above China Lake, California, from the back of an MH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter, an operator with a tablet takes control of a Gray Eagle drone and tasks it with firing a small, precision-glide munition at an enemy target located on the ground. But at the last second, a higher level threat is detected and the munition is rapidly redirected toward a different threat, eliminating it within seconds. This was made possible through the architecture, automation, autonomy and interfaces capability, or A3I, built by the Army's Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team under Army Futures Command. The demonstration showed the ability to nimbly pass control between operators of unmanned systems and munitions through a networked architecture of systems also receiving and filtering real-time, pertinent information to aid in operational decision-making. “It was our first jump into algorithmic warfare,” Brig. Gen. Wally Rugen, who is in charge of the Army's FVL modernization effort, told Defense News following the demonstration. “We definitely didn't jump into the deep end of the pool, but we jumped in and, again, we are into pursuing that as far as we can take it to help soldiers be lethal.” The Aug. 26 demonstration sought to tighten the kill chain and allow for more advanced teaming between air assets and troops on the ground using a resilient network. “When you talk about our kill chain, we are trying to take seconds out of our kill chain,” Rugen said. “We feel like we understand the reverse kill chain — the enemy coming to get us. Our kill chain is going to get them, and we want our decision-making to be as precise and as expeditious as possible,” using automation and autonomy, he added. AI3 was developed over the course of nine months and culminated in the demonstration at China Lake. "Going from a concept, and in a matter of months putting it into an experiment: That was probably the most impressive thing, particularly if you look back at the history of how we do these,” James McPherson, the official performing the duties of the undersecretary of the Army, told Defense News. McPherson attended the demonstration to emphasize the importance to senior Army leadership of modernization efforts within the service. The FVL effort in particular includes ensuring manned, unmanned, munition and other air-launched effects are all seamlessly networked together to fight in advanced formations in a congested environment, such as an urban area, and that they are prepared to fight across multiple domains. Using an interface called Arbitrator, the service networked together a variety of targeting identification and rapid automated processing, exploitation and distribution, or PED, capabilities as well as real-time weather information and several other features and capabilities to help operators of unmanned systems penetrate, in the case of the demonstration, an urban environment. AI3 in action During the demo, one of the systems integrated into the network tied to a ground sensor detected a possible threat on the ground. Seeing the threat detected in the system, a helicopter pilot then gained control of an extended-range Gray Eagle and tasked it to perform reconnaissance of the possible target. Using the UAS, the pilot identified the threat as an enemy surface-to-air missile system. The pilot then ordered the UAS to fire a Dynetics GBU-69 small glide munition to defeat the target, marking the first time the munition had been fired from a Gray Eagle. But as the munition closed in on the target, the system picks up on another threat deemed more important for elimination. The information for this decision came from the integrated PED systems that use machine-learning algorithms to accurately identify items of interest. Another operator then redirected the munition during its final seconds of flight to hit the new, more pressing threat. Why does the Army need A31 capability? To build the system, the government took the lead integration role, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Cory Anderson, the UAS branch chief for Army Special Operations Aviation Command, said at the demonstration. This ensured the service's ability to get the right levels of interoperability between subsystems. But almost all of the capabilities tied into the government's black box came from small businesses and academia. Much of the initial development has come from the special operations side of the house. The demonstration was viewed from a tactical operations center, with screens lining the walls of a large air-conditioned trailer, but the system has a scalable control interface and can be remotely accessed from a cockpit or even a tablet used by a soldier on the ground. This breaks the Army free from having to use a ground control station, Anderson said, meaning the footprint and logistics tail can be drastically reduced. To put together the tactical operations center and ground control station, it took roughly seven C-17 planes to move heavy equipment into China Lake. “We can't sustain that,” Anderson said. “We believe we can get it down to a two C-17 load-out just by minimizing the generational requirements alone.” By integrating PED systems that use machine learning into A3I, the Army no longer requires a large number of people — roughly 30 at a time — to conduct PED from full-motion video. The Arbitrator system allows for operators to pass control of various systems back and forth at different levels of control, from just receiving information from a sensor or UAS to controlling a payload to the entire system. The system is also under development to improve its automation levels. The utility of passing control to a relevant operator not tied to a ground station means taking out the middle man that doesn't have the same advantageous access to the tactical edge another possible operator might have. Rugen said that if there's an operator on the ground close to the action, it's much easier to take control of systems rather than try to direct someone far away to the right location to get eyes on a possible point of interest or target in order to make an actionable decision. “What if the squad leader could just grab the sensor because we have the hierarchy?” Rugen noted. While the capability was developed and demonstrated by the FVL Cross-Functional Team, the system has applications for almost everything on the battlefield, from applications to long-range precision fires targeting capabilities to next-generation combat vehicle teaming to soldier systems. Both directors for the Long-Range Precision Fires and the Network cross-functional teams were present at the demonstration. While the unclassified version of the demo didn't show capability, the classified version addresses the architecture's capability to protect itself against threat-representative electronic attack. “We want to make sure we have a resilient network,” Rugen said. The next step is to move the Arbitrator system onto an airborne platform, which would completely eliminate the ground control station. That will be demonstrated in roughly a year. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/09/05/jumping-into-algorithmic-warfare-army-aviation-tightens-kill-chain-with-networked-architecture/

  • A compromise is needed on trans-Atlantic defense cooperation

    17 octobre 2019 | International, Autre défense

    A compromise is needed on trans-Atlantic defense cooperation

    By: Hans Binnendijk and Jim Townsend The incoming European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, will need to work with Washington to defuse a quietly simmering trans-Atlantic defense cooperation issue that, if left unsettled, could do more long-term damage to the NATO alliance than U.S. President Donald Trump's divisive tweets. The United States for years has sought to stimulate increased European defense spending while minimizing wasteful duplication caused by Europe's fragmented defense industry. Europe has finally begun to deliver: Defense spending is up significantly, and the European Union has created several programs to strengthen its defense industries. But in the process, the EU has created a trans-Atlantic problem. These advances in Europe could come at the expense of non-EU defense industries, especially in the U.S. The European Defence Fund, or EDF, established in 2017, is designed to support the cooperative research and development efforts of European defense industries, especially small and mid-sized firms. Three eligible companies from at least three EU countries need to apply in a coordinated fashion to receive project research and development funding, which can be up to a 100 percent grant for the research phase. Plans call for spending about $15 billion between 2021 and 2027 to strengthen Europe's defense R&D and stimulate innovation. Model projects include the Eurodrone and ground-based precision strike weapons. A second related EU program, Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, also inaugurated in 2017, focuses more on efforts to foster defense cooperation among subsets of European states. Initially envisioned in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, PESCO is an effort to develop a more comprehensive European defense consistent with EU's common foreign and security policy needs. Thus far, 25 of 28 EU nations have signed up, with 34 modest cooperative projects agreed to by the European Council. The EU estimates that the inefficiency caused by the lack of adequate defense cooperation costs its members between $25 billion and $100 billion annually. These new EU programs, designed to pool and share scarce defense resources, are intended to help address that problem. But the exclusivity of these approaches favor the defense industries of EU members, and the hostile Trump administration rhetoric toward the EU is only supercharging this controversy. President Trump's negative attitude toward NATO and European leaders has undercut European confidence in American trans-Atlantic leadership and strengthened a call in some European capitals for European “strategic autonomy.” Part of this autonomy is developing a more capable and independent European military supported by a stronger European defense industry. A stronger European military capability is a goal shared on both sides of the Atlantic, but not at the expense of defense cooperation. While European leaders understand that they are probably decades away from real, strategic autonomy and military independence, they are shaping the EDF and PESCO approaches to protect European defense industry by being fairly exclusive of U.S. or other non-EU defense industries. This has U.S. defense officials worried. A May 2020 letter to the EU from two senior U.S. officials stated their “deep concern” about the programs' regulations. While current EDF and PESCO programs are small, U.S. officials are worried they will set precedents and will be a model for more ambitious European defense cooperation in the future. They fear not only that U.S. industry will be cut out, but that two separate defense industry tracks will be established that will undercut NATO interoperability and promote further duplication. Some U.S. officials have threatened U.S. retaliation unless changes are made. EU officials respond that these criticisms are excessive. They note that some American defense firms established in European countries will be eligible, that there is nothing comparable to the “Buy American Act” in Europe, that plenty of trans-Atlantic cooperative projects can take place outside of these two EU programs, that the PESCO projects will be guided by both EU and NATO requirements, and that over 80 percent of European international defense contracts go to U.S. firms anyway. They also note that a deterrent to U.S.-EU defense cooperation is that U.S. arms transfer control regulations create potential American restrictions on the sale to third countries of any U.S.-EU cooperative weapons systems that contain U.S. technology. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who seems caught in the middle, has supported both EDF and PESCO, so long as the results fill NATO capability gaps and do not lead to further duplication. Flexibility will be needed on both sides of the Atlantic to defuse this issue before it becomes too difficult to manage. Some opportunities for third-country participation will be needed. Possible approaches to level the playing field include focusing on modifying PESCO, which is still under development in the EU. One suggestion is to create a “white list” of NATO nations not in the EU (such as the U.S., Canada, Norway, post-Brexit United Kingdom and Turkey) that might be invited to participate in selected PESCO projects on a case-by-case basis. This would at least set a precedent that PESCO does not completely exclude third countries. And it would strengthen EU-NATO defense links. Additionally, formal procedures might be established for closer cooperation between the PESCO project selection process and NATO's defense planning process. This will help avoid duplication and identify at NATO those areas where NATO nations outside the EU could cooperate on PESCO projects, The U.S. might also consider amending its arms export control legislation to waive the third-country transfer review requirement for the export of U.S.-PESCO joint projects if the sale would be made to a country to which the U.S. would have made a similar sale. EU internal negotiations on EDF are finished, and changes will be hard to make. Plus, EDF provides R&D funding grants that use European financial resources. While some $118 million in U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds go to European firms, that is about 3 percent of DARPA's budget. So the U.S. might ask for some modest reciprocity from the EDF. But more constructively, DARPA and the EDF might co-fund R&D for joint U.S.-EU projects. The United States has much to gain from a strong European defense industry. Europe has much to gain from cooperation with the U.S. defense industry. All NATO allies need to stimulate defense innovation to compete effectively with Russia and China. Both sides of the Atlantic have much to lose if this issue further disrupts NATO's already shaky political equilibrium. Hopefully von der Leyen's experience as a former German defense minister will help her to understand the urgency and to find a solution to this problem. Hans Binnendijk is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and formerly served as the senior director for defense policy on the U.S. National Security Council. Jim Townsend is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and formerly served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/16/a-compromise-is-needed-on-trans-atlantic-defense-cooperation/

  • NATO’s London meetings are off to a rocky start

    4 décembre 2019 | International, Autre défense

    NATO’s London meetings are off to a rocky start

    By: Sebastian Sprenger LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump landed Tuesday in London with a splash, decrying French President Emmanuel Macron's recent description of NATO as brain dead, calling it a “nasty” assessment and unfair to the alliance. Trump's remarks on the eve of a meeting of government leaders here on Wednesday come as NATO members are already on edge about myriad internal differences. Clashing views have become so pronounced in the last few weeks that some observers fear the worst for what has been billed as NATO's 70th birthday bash. “You just can't go around making statements like that about NATO,” Trump said of Macron in a joint news conference with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. “It's very disrespectful.” The U.S. president's words are remarkable not for their tone — he also delivered an en passant bashing of French politics and economy — but for the substance of the argument. Trump, who has shown a deep disdain for the mere principle of multilaterlism, appears to be shielding NATO from Macron's critique, which in turn was partly aimed at himself. Talk about the three-dimensional chess of geopolitics. Or something like that. Stoltenberg, for his part, sought to downplay any cracks within the alliance, arguing in typical fashion that healthy squabbling should be expected in any group of countries working together. “If you look at the substance, you can see that the alliance is delivering,” he said at the NATO Engages think tank event in central London. He named ongoing operations to secure the eastern flank against Russia, the training of security forces in Iraq and an uptick in defense spending by all allies in recent years as examples of an alliance that continues to be operationally relevant. Stoltenberg was noncommittal, however, on the latest curveball thrown by member country Turkey. The Turks want their perception of a terrorist threat posed by YPG Kurdish units to their border with Syria recognized by all of NATO as a quid pro quo for backing the alliance's bolstering of the Baltics. Such a deal could cause a significant rift. Trump is an admirer of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and will likely get more deeply involved in the issue during meetings here. “Turkey does not question the alliance, but rather Turkey expects an understanding of the threat of terrorism to one of its allies,” Gülnur Aybet, Erdogan's senior adviser on foreign policy, told the NATO Engages audience. “We don't question the credibility of Article 5. On the contrary, we expect it to be fulfilled,” she added, referring to the alliance's creed that an attack on one member will prompt a response by all. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-2020-defined/2019/12/03/natos-london-meetings-are-off-to-a-rocky-start/

Toutes les nouvelles