Leidos secures $267m US Army contract for C5ISR services

Sur le même sujet

• 

  23 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Rafale coming in! How Rafale fighter jets fare against the Chinese PLAAF fighters?

  Updated: Jul 22, 2020 8:43 AM The PAF had acquired the F-16 Fighting Falcons a couple of years before. This time around, with the induction of the Rafale, does the IAF need more than a catchy tag line to keep the PLAAF at bay? By Wing Commander Amit Ranjan Giri “The balance rests on us”–this was the catchphrase of the IAF when the first MiG 29 thundered down and took to the skies in Pune, in the mid-eighties, heralding the parity in new generation fighter jets between the PAF and IAF. The PAF had acquired the F-16 Fighting Falcons a couple of years before. This time around, with the induction of the Rafale, does the IAF need more than a catchy tag line to keep the PLAAF at bay? As Group Captain Harkirat and his boys land the latest fighting machines at Ambala, five in all, two twins seaters (RB series) and three single-seaters (BS series), they propel the IAF to another level of air fighting capability, one which would enhance itself with the acquisition of all 36 Rafales and associated weaponry in the near future. An interesting trivia about IAF fighters is that, Russian fighters generally come in huge crates and are assembled in India whereas most ‘western' fighters are flown in, from the OEM country. This, by no means, indicates that the incoming Rafales would be able to take on the enemy immediately, it would take the IAF a little time before these jets are operationalised with a plethora of weaponry, the earlier the better. How does the Rafale fare against the Chinese fighters? The Rafales' main contender in the PLAAF would be the Chengdu J-20 and if produced and operationalised the Shenyang J-31, both are highly rated by the Chinese media and pitched as fifth-generation stealth fighters against the Rafales' 4.5 generation lineage. That having been said, the Chinese fighters' capabilities are only on paper, much of them are yet to be demonstrated or proven. True, the Rafale lacks stealth but is built around the low RCS philosophy whereas, though the J-20 proclaims itself as a proponent of stealth the ‘canards' in front and additional external hardpoints for extra fuel tanks would shatter much of its claims in this department. Just to clear the air around stealth – absolute all aspect stealth is a myth, at least as of now. Aeroplanes claiming stealth are actually low observables depending on their aspect – the way they look to the enemy sensors- never invisible from all direction. The IAF has been known to pick up Chinese J-20s on their Su 30 radars earlier. Engine, weapons and avionics: who gets the better score? With limited internal capacity of weapons and no ‘supercruise' capability as yet, the Chinese contenders do have a lot to live up to. The Rafale, in this aspect, delivers what it promises – low RCS, excellent weapon carriage capability – albeit external and supercruise – the ability to go supersonic without afterburners. When it comes to avionics, all three aircraft would pitch ‘neck to neck'. All boast of one of the most advanced radars – the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) and all three have equivalent avionics suites onboard. However, it is yet to be seen if the Chinese have been able to integrate these technologies to match, compute and present the desired data – a capability which leapfrogs an aircraft to the next level. The Rafale's SPECTRA defensive aids system is a classic example of this – processing and amalgamating information from various sensors to safeguard the aircraft. The SCALP and Meteor are some of the goodies in the Rafale package for the IAF. Whilst the former is a ground attack precision weapon, the latter, is one of the best BeyondVisualRange (BVR) air to air missiles available at present. The J-20 in comparison carries the PL series of missiles with the PL 15 matching up with the Meteor in terms of range. As per the last reports, the PL 21 with enhanced range was yet to be operationalised. Pedigree versus Pariah, who wins? The Rafale comes from an ancestry of well-known fighters which Dassault has produced and earned their place in the annals of history. If western intelligence reports are to be believed the Chinese fighters have been an attempted copy of the F 22 Raptor and the F 35 Lightning, curtsy hackers who had managed to steal substantial amount of data from the US servers. Apart from the privileged pedigree the Rafale is also combat-proven – Libya, Iraq and Syria were all contemporary conflicts wherein the French fighter has been able to earn a name for itself. The Chinese fighters, in contrast, are yet to be proven in battle, as far as the J-31 goes there are doubts if the machine has gone beyond the prototype stage as yet. The J-20, on the other hand, does enjoy an edge over its single-engined cousin, it has entered the production stage and rumours of about one squadron of this type with PLAAF has surfaced in the intelligence circle. All the above being said it needs to be appreciated that no comparison of fighting machines can be justified with data on paper – a lot goes in exploiting platforms during the war and a major portion of the winning effort comes from other non-tangible factors – the side which exploits the entire spectrum generally lands up on the victorious side. https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/rafale-coming-in-how-does-rafale-fighter-jets-fare-against-the-chinese-plaaf-fighters/2031381/

• 

  25 mai 2020 | International, Naval

  Germany’s TKMS buys Brazilian shipyard as production hub for local frigate program

  By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems will buy the Oceana shipyard in the southern Brazilian state of Santa Catarina to manufacture Tamandaré-class frigates for Brazil's Navy, the company announced this week. The German vendor heads the Águas Azuis consortium, which is building an initial set of four ships based on its MEKO vessel design. The industry team also includes Embraer Defence and Security as well as its subsidiary Atech. TKMS, based in Kiel, Germany, has no production facilities for surface ships, which means the company must make arrangements for local production when selling its flagship vessel design overseas. The pick of the Oceana yard, which specializes in offshore support vessels and is owned by CBO Group of Rio de Janeiro, was the result of the TKMS' own economic and logistical analyses and turned out to be an “ideal option,” according to a spokesman. “The shipyard also offers us the prospect of taking on follow-on orders — not only locally, but also in other countries of South America,” CEO Rolf Wirtz was quoted as saying in a statement. The acquisition is subject to approval by Brazilian antitrust authorities, and it is contingent on the frigate contract going into effect sometime in the “middle of the year,” the statement read. A company spokesman declined to name a date. Parties involved in the planned transaction would not disclose a price. The Águas Azuis consortium aims to deliver the Tamandaré-class frigates between 2025 and 2028. The companies aim to train 800 local employees for the job. “This means that ships with a very high domestic added value can be built in Brazil,” the company said. Embraer is slated to be the systems integrator for weapons and sensors on the new ships. Atech, with help from TKMS subsidiary Atlas Elektronik, will supply the combat management system. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/22/germanys-tkms-buys-brazilian-shipyard-as-production-hub-for-local-frigate-program/

• 

  21 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Estimate of new nuclear missiles to replace Minuteman 3 arsenal increases to $95.8B

  WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has raised to $95.8 billion the estimated cost of fielding a new fleet of land-based nuclear missiles to replace the Minuteman 3 arsenal that has operated continuously for 50 years, officials said Monday. Robert Burns The estimate is up about $10 billion from four years ago. The weapons, known as intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, are intended as part of a near-total replacement of the American nuclear force over the next few decades at a total cost of more than $1.2 trillion. Some, including former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, argue that U.S. national security can be ensured without ICBMs, but the Pentagon says they are vital to deterring war. The Trump administration affirmed its commitment to fielding a new generation of ICBMs in a 2018 review of nuclear policy. “The ICBM force is highly survivable against any but a large-scale nuclear attack,” the review concluded. “To destroy U.S. ICBMs on the ground, an adversary would need to launch a precisely coordinated attack with hundreds of high-yield and accurate warheads. This is an insurmountable challenge for any potential adversary today, with the exception of Russia.” The current fleet of 400 deployed Minuteman missiles, each armed with a single nuclear warhead, is based in underground silos in Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska. Their numbers are governed in part by the 2010 New START treaty with Russia, which is due to expire in February. Russia wants to extend the treaty but the Trump administration has set conditions not accepted by Moscow. The U.S. also is building a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines to replace the current Ohio-class strategic subs; a new long-range nuclear-capable bomber to replace the B-2 stealth aircraft; a next-generation air-launched nuclear cruise missile; and a new nuclear command and communications system. It also is working on updated warheads, including an ICBM warhead replacement for an estimated $14.8 billion The nuclear modernization program was launched by the Obama administration and has been continued by President Donald Trump. Democrat Joe Biden has said that if elected in November he would consider finding ways to scale back the program. The Pentagon's $95.8 billion cost estimate for the Minuteman replacement was first reported by Bloomberg News. The Pentagon provided the estimate to Congress last month but had, until Monday, refused to release it publicly. Last month the Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $13.3 billion contract for engineering and manufacturing development of the new missiles. The total “lifecycle” cost, including operating and sustaining the missiles over their expected lifetime into the 2070s, is set at $263.9 billion. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/19/estimate-of-new-nuclear-missiles-to-replace-minuteman-3-arsenal-increases-to-958b/