21 avril 2021 | International, C4ISR

Honeywell pushes development of alternatives to GPS

To deal with disruptions to GPS, sometimes caused by malicious jamming or spoofing, Honeywell is developing several alternative navigation technologies for military aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/honeywell-pushes-development-of-alternatives-to-gps/143377.article?referrer=RSS

Sur le même sujet

  • A Report from NATO's Front Lines

    11 juin 2019 | International, Sécurité, Autre défense

    A Report from NATO's Front Lines

    by Michael O'Hanlon All is busy on NATO’s eastern front. That was our main conclusion during a recent study delegation to Lithuania sponsored by the Lithuanian Ministry of National Defense and organized by the Atlantic Council. A lot is happening on the defense preparation front, and the overall security situation is improving considerably compared with a few years ago. But problems remain and work still has to be done, if deterrence and stability are to be ensured, and a potentially devastating war with Russia prevented. As many people will recall, the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with a combined population of some six million and combined military strength of some thirty thousand active-duty troops, joined NATO in 2004. All three border Russia, though in the case of Lithuania, that border is in the western part of the country (near Russia’s Kaliningrad pocket). Lithuania’s eastern frontier is shared with Belarus, a close ally of Moscow, at Vladimir Putin’s insistence. Its southern border touches Poland, along the famed “Suwalki gap,” the narrow land corridor through which NATO would likely send most of its tens of thousands of reinforcements during any major crisis or conflict with Russia over the Baltics. All three Baltic states, plus Poland, are now among the seven of NATO’s twenty-nine members that meet their obligations to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on their militaries, however imperfect a metric of burden-sharing that formal NATO requirement may be. In Lithuania’s case, this represents a tripling of military spending since 2013. Give President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama some of the credit for recent increases if you wish. But give the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Poles the majority of the credit—with a nod, of course, to Vladimir Putin, who has done more to unify and motivate eastern Europeans’ security efforts than anyone else this century. Since 2014, when Russia seized Crimea in Ukraine and stoked a conflict in Ukraine’s east that continues to this day, NATO has been gradually fortifying its eastern flank, in the Baltic states and Poland. It now has a multinational battalion-size battlegroup (of about one thousand soldiers) in each of the three Baltic states, plus a larger U.S. brigade-sized presence in Poland (with occasional, but intermittent, American deployments into the Baltic states for exercising and signaling resolve). The battalion in Lithuania is backstopped by Germany, with additional major contributions from the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. These battalions are collectively described as the “enhanced forward presence” or eFP program, following NATO’s Operation Atlantic Resolve; the U.S. element is often described as the European deterrence initiative. Adding in those rotational deployments, there are some thirty-five thousand total NATO troops in the Baltics, with only a smattering of Americans on most days. Russia has well over one hundred thousand of its own recently-improved forces just across the border and could probably muster closer to two hundred thousand with little effort under the guise of an exercise, if it wished. The Lithuanians’ recent defense efforts need to be put in perspective. The nation is resolute, with 80 percent supporting NATO forces deployed to its territory and all of the recent major presidential candidates—and eventual winner—favoring the ongoing defense buildup. But it does not seem paranoid, or on serious edge, even as the officials we saw were clear about the challenge and legitimately focused on progress. While a military budget at 2 percent of GDP, headed towards 2.5 percent, is an impressive defense effort, it does not reflect the dire sense of urgency of a society expecting imminent war. After all, the United States and Russia each spend more than 3 percent of GDP on their armed forces; in fact, NATO aimed for a 3 percent minimum during the Cold War, when the United States typically spent upwards of 5 percent of GDP on its military. And for all the enhancements to its two main combat brigades, Lithuania has restrained from fortifying the eastern and western flanks of the country with smart minefields or other barriers to invasion. For its part, NATO more generally has stationed the eFP forces but has not tied them into a truly integrated combat force; nor has it deployed many helicopters or air defense systems into the Baltic states. It certainly has not prestationed the seven brigades of capability that a 2016 RAND Corporation simulation estimated as necessary to constitute a viable forward defense position. The current level of effort, vigilant but tempered, strikes us as roughly appropriate to the circumstances at hand. While there are still conflict scenarios that can be imagined, it is hard to think that President Putin believes he could really get away with naked aggression against any NATO member, including those in the Baltic region. Even if NATO does not have an adequate forward defense in place against hypothetical Russian aggression, it does have a rather robust forward tripwire, combined with increasingly credible ways of rapidly reinforcing that tripwire in a crisis. Still, there are three additional lines of effort that Washington and other NATO capitals should pursue in the interest of greater deterrence, stability, and predictability in eastern Europe. First, as a recent Atlantic Council report, “Permanent Deterrence,” underscored, NATO should strengthen key pieces of its modest military presence in Poland and the Baltic states. Much of this can happen in the Polish/American sector, but elements of it should extend to the Baltics as well. It makes good sense to combine greater combat engineering capability for military mobility, so as to better move reinforcements into the east in the face of possible Russian opposition, together with plugging gaps in areas such as combat aviation and air defense, and pre-stocking certain equipment. Moscow may complain, but it cannot credibly view such additions as major NATO additions or provocations, especially because they are modest, and because Russian actions have necessitated them. Second, nonmilitary elements of NATO resoluteness need to be strengthened, too. As discussed in The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War over Small Stakes, there are various types of very small Russian probing attacks that could leave NATO flummoxed and paralyzed over how to respond. These attacks might not reach the threshold where all alliance members would wish to invoke NATO’s Article V mutual-defense clause and send military forces in response, yet they could be too serious to ignore. NATO should conceptualize such scenarios and exercise crisis decisionmaking in advance while honing various economic and diplomatic approaches to complement any military responses. NATO also needs to develop more contingency plans for economic warfare with Russia that would provide alternative energy sources in a crisis. Lithuania’s recent development of a liquefied natural gas terminal is exemplary in this regard. Third, while projecting resolve vis-à-vis Moscow, including retention of the EU and U.S. sanctions that have been imposed on Russia in recent years, NATO needs to rethink its broader strategy towards Russia. This strategy should include options for bettering relations in a post–Putin Russia. Various types of security architectures and arrangements should be explored and debated. For now, with a new president in Kiev, a concerted effort to help Ukraine reform its economy and further weed out corruption makes eminent sense. Things are moving in the right direction in eastern Europe, but there is considerable work left to be done. Michael O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the new book, The Senkaku Paradox; Christopher Skaluba is the director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/report-natos-front-lines-62067

  • BAE Systems Receives Order for LRASM’s Advanced Seeker

    9 décembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    BAE Systems Receives Order for LRASM’s Advanced Seeker

    Posted on December 8, 2020 by Seapower Staff NASHUA, N.H. — BAE Systems has received a $60 million contract from Lockheed Martin to manufacture and deliver additional advanced missile seekers for the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), BAE Systems announced in a Dec. 8 release. The seeker comprises long-range sensors and targeting technology that help the stealthy missile find and engage protected maritime targets in challenging electromagnetic environments.  “Our warfighters need resilient, long-range precision strike capabilities to compete with modern adversaries,” said Bruce Konigsberg, Radio Frequency Sensors product area director at BAE Systems. “We’re proud to partner with Lockheed Martin in delivering this distinct competitive advantage to U.S. warfighters.”  LRASM combines extended range with increased survivability and lethality to deliver long-range precision strike capabilities. LRASM is designed to detect and destroy specific targets within groups of ships by employing advanced technologies that reduce dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, network links, and GPS navigation in contested environments.  This LRASM seeker contract continues the transition of the program from Accelerated Acquisition to Low-Rate Production. BAE Systems has delivered more than 50 systems to date that have demonstrated excellent technical performance over multiple test events. The company also is working to make the seeker system smaller, more capable, and more efficient to produce.  The LRASM is being Deployed on Air Force B-1B bombers and Navy F/A-18E/F strike fighters.  BAE Systems’ LRASM seeker technology builds on the company’s decades of experience designing and producing state-of-the-art electronic warfare technology, and its expertise in small form factor design, signal processing, target detection, and identification.  Work on the LRASM sensor will be conducted at BAE Systems’ facilities in Wayne, New Jersey; Greenlawn, New York; and Nashua, New Hampshire.  https://seapowermagazine.org/bae-systems-receives-order-for-lrasms-advanced-seeker/

  • US Navy signs contract to buy Fat Albert replacement aircraft

    22 juillet 2019 | International, Naval

    US Navy signs contract to buy Fat Albert replacement aircraft

    The US Navy has officially signed a contract to purchase a used C-130J Super Hercules aircraft from the British Royal Air Force. The aircraft will replace the C-130T, nicknamed Fat Albert, used by the Blue Angels flying demonstration team. The contract was signed in Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group’s chalet at the Royal International Air Tattoo. Fat Albert has served the Blue Angels for 17 years since 2002, providing logistics and transportation. It retired in May this year. The aircraft flew more than 30,000 hours and now serves as a ground-based training platform in Fort Worth, Texas. The flying demonstration team will continue to fly US Navy or Marine Corps C-130s until the arrival of the replacement C-130J aircraft. US Naval Air Systems Command Air, ASW, Assault and Special Mission Programs Program executive officer major general Gregory Masiello said: “We are very much looking forward to taking delivery of the aircraft and are very grateful to both the UK MoD and Marshall for enabling this transaction and know that the C-130 Hercules will be a valuable addition to our flying demonstration team.” Marshall is tasked with the job of delivering maintenance, painting and modifications to the US Navy’s new C-130J that is being acquired from the RAF. RAF Number 2 Group commanding officer air vice-marshal David Cooper said: “This is a superb indication of the co-operation between the militaries of the UK and the US. We know that this C-130 Hercules will serve the US Navy as well as it has served the RAF.” Blue Angels is the US Navy’s flight demonstration squadron https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-navy-signs-contract-to-buy-fat-albert-replacement-aircraft/

Toutes les nouvelles