28 septembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre

Marines award contract for lighter, better fitting plate carrier


Marines will soon be getting their hands on a new lighter and better fitting plate carrier.

On Wednesday, the Defense Department announced that a five-year contract of $62,612,464 was awarded to Vertical Protective Apparel LLC, a New Jersey-based company, to produce the Corps’ Plate Carrier Generation III.

The contract calls for a maximum of 225,886 new plate carriers over a five-year period.

The Corps has been in collaboration with the Army for new lighter and better fitting plate carrier and ballistic armor since a policy update in 2016 from the Capabilities Development Directorate called for a fit update.

“The legacy carrier fit the span of the Marine Corps, but this new system is more tailorable to fit Marines of various sizes with three new smaller-stature options,” Flora “Mackie” Jordan, body armor engineer for the Infantry Combat Equipment Team at Marine Corps Systems Command, said in a command release. “We wanted to give as much mobility back to Marines as possible by reducing the weight and bulk of the vest without decreasing ballistic protection. We were able to reduce the weight of the vest by 25 percent.”

The Corps managed to shave an inch-and-a-half from the bottom and removed some material from the shoulders.The new fit will help lighten the load and reduce fatigue on the battlefield.

The new plate carrier is "less bulky, lighter in weight, and provides a smaller overall footprint than the current plate carrier while maintaining the same soft armor coverage and protection level," Barbara Hamby, a spokeswoman for Marine Corps Systems Command, told Marine Corps Times last July, while describing a prototype of the new plate carrier.

The new carrier also comes with a quick release, which will help Marines take the carrier off faster than the legacy system

Marines are also amid plans to procure lighter ballistic armor.


Sur le même sujet

  • Boeing Making Waves In Simulation And Training

    7 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Boeing Making Waves In Simulation And Training

    Bill Carey | Aviation Week & Space Technology The U.S. Air Force’s choice of Boeing to supply the new T-X advanced pilot training jet to replace the Northrop T-38C Talon boosted the manufacturer’s profile as a training and simulation provider, a shift overshadowed by the hard-fought competition over the aircraft itself. With the T-X program in hand, Boeing dominates the U.S. lead-in fighter trainer segment, and it expects to prepare generations of Air Force pilots to fly fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft. A navalized version of its new jet would position the company for any future replacement of the T-45 Goshawk used to instruct Navy and Marine Corps pilots, closing the loop of U.S. services that operate fighters. Boeing is no newcomer to the simulation field—it provides training devices and support for the F-22 Raptor, the F-16 and its own F-15, F/A-18, EA-18G, P-8A and AH-64 Apache. But the significance of the T-X award was not lost on peers exhibiting at the recent Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC). “Certainly, it’s a pretty big program,” says Philippe Perey, CAE head of technology for defense and security. “Boeing will be the owner of that program for years to come.” Full article: http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-making-waves-simulation-and-training

  • America’s F-22 stealth fighter may be limited in Asia-Pacific conditions, China’s J-20 designer says

    30 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    America’s F-22 stealth fighter may be limited in Asia-Pacific conditions, China’s J-20 designer says

    Aircraft has been sent to the region but was designed for combat in Europe, which could affect its capabilities, according to Yang Wei China’s answer to the Raptor has yet to be put to the test in a real combat situation, military expert notes   Minnie Chan Published: 12:00am, 30 Jul, 2020 America’s F-22 Raptor stealth fighter was designed for combat in Europe but is now being used in the Asia-Pacific, according to a top Chinese aircraft designer, who says the different conditions will limit its capabilities there. Yang Wei, general designer of China’s first stealth fighter the J-20, said the twin-engine F-22s could face the same challenges in the region as the F-4 fighter-bombers the Pentagon sent to the Vietnam war between 1965 and 1973. “The complex environment and political constraints in Vietnam caused the F-4 to almost fail to show its high-speed performance and over-the-horizon combat capabilities,” Yang wrote in a paper published in Chinese aeronautics journal Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica last month. He said the F-22, a tactical fighter inspired by the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union, was designed for battle in Europe and could face similar problems now that it had been deployed in the Asia-Pacific. Yang did not draw any comparisons between America’s F-22 and China’s J-20 both fifth-generation, twin-engine heavy fighter jets and of a similar size. But military experts said his remarks indicated that the J-20 Weilong, or Powerful Dragon, was clearly seen as China’s answer to the F-22. Comparing the two, Song Zhongping, a military commentator in Hong Kong, said the J-20’s biggest advantage was that it was developed later, meaning its designers could learn from the F-22 – including how to fix shortcomings, and what type of new technologies could be used to optimise the aircraft. “The F-22 was originally designed for combat with the former Soviet Union, or today’s Russia, in Europe, but now the Raptor’s main opponent is the [People’s Liberation Army] in the Asia-Pacific,” Song said. “China’s J-20 was inspired by the F-22’s deployment. The Chinese aircraft designers used the Raptor as a rival and the F-35 [stealth multi-role fighter] as a tactical opponent to help them to come up with a more practical and capable fighter jet.” Both the F-22 and the J-20 have a ceiling of 20km (12.4 miles) and a maximum speed of over Mach 2 (2,470km per hour, or 1,535mph) – faster than the speed of sound. The F-22 has a comparatively shorter range – with a combat radius of 800km (497 miles), while the J-20’s large internal fuel tank can sustain a longer combat radius of 1,100km (684 miles). But Beijing-based military expert Zhou Chenming noted that the J-20, which entered service in 2017, had yet to be put to the test in a real combat situation. Andrei Chang, founder of influential military magazine Kanwa Asian Defence, said that in contrast, the F-22’s combat capabilities had been seen, most recently last year when the stealth fighters were sent to Qatar as tensions rose with Iran. “The operation of the F-22 has been perfected since it joined the US military in 2005. The Raptor has taken part in countless actual combat situations around the globe, including in the Middle East, Singapore and Okinawa in the Pacific,” Chang said. A military source close to the PLA believed the J-20 could counter the F-22 in a one-on-one combat situation, but said far fewer of the fighter jets had been made compared to America’s Raptors. “At the moment China has about 60 J-20s – just one-third of the total number of F-22s,” said the source, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. “Now the US has deployed hundreds of F-35s to the region, so it’s an even bigger threat to China,” he added. With F-22s being deployed to the Asia-Pacific region – and as relations worsen with Washington, including over the disputed South China Sea – Beijing has stepped up development of its new stealth fighter. Mass production of the J-20B began earlier this month. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3095219/americas-f-22-stealth-fighter-may-be-limited-asia-pacific  

  • Does DoD know how to supply intel for cyber ops?

    3 juillet 2018 | International, C4ISR

    Does DoD know how to supply intel for cyber ops?

    By: Mark Pomerleau  Cyber has been an official domain of warfare for nearly a decade, yet the Department of Defense is still learning how to integrate it with operations. And some members of Congress are concerned the traditional military intelligence organs to this day don’t understand intel support to cyber ops. The House Armed Services Committee is directing that a briefing on the subject must take place by December 1, 2018. The briefing — delivered by the under secretary of defense for intelligence, in coordination with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the military services — is expected, according to a provision in the committee’s annual defense policy bill, to address multiple issues, including: Efforts to standardize a common military doctrine for intelligence preparation of the battlefield for cyber operations; Efforts to develop all-source intelligence analysts with the capability to support cyber operations; and Efforts to resource intelligence analysis support elements at U.S. Cyber Command and the service cyber components. “The committee is concerned about the Defense Intelligence Enterprise’s ability to provide the cyber community with all-source intelligence support, consistent with the support provided to operations in other domains,” the provision, called an “item of special interest,” says. In some cases, other intelligence disciplines, such as human intelligence or signals intelligence, might be needed to help enable a cyber operation. A committee aide noted that the goal is to get DoD to think about cyber operations just as operations in any domain and build the infrastructure to support that. According to Gus Hunt, Accenture Federal Services cyber strategy lead, cyber as a domain is really no different than the others from an intelligence support perspective. The objective of intelligence, he told Fifth Domain in a recent interview, is to ensure it provides timely information about the adversary, who they are, the status of their capabilities and any information about the threats that are there. “I think what you’re seeing … is that people are asking the question are we appropriately structured or resourced and focused to be as effective as we possibly can in this new realm of cyber and cyber operations,” Hunt, who previously served as the chief technology officer at the CIA, said. “Because they’re asking the question, I think the obvious answer is ... we’re not structured as effectively as we possibly can be … [but] it’s really good that people are sitting there asking.” The Army is experiencing similar problems, especially when it comes to experimenting with force structure changes and bringing cyber effects to the tactical edge, which currently don’t exist. “We’re not seeing a corresponding growth in the intel organizational structure with the cyber and” electronic warfare, Lt. Col. Chris Walls, deputy division chief for strategy and policy in the cyber directorate of the Department of the Army G-3/5/7, said at the C4ISRNET conference in May. “The existing intel force structure is really going to be stressed when we put this EW and cyber capability into the field unless they have a corresponding growth and capability as well,” Walls said of tactical cyber effects and teams. https://www.fifthdomain.com/congress/2018/07/02/does-dod-know-how-to-supply-intel-for-cyber-ops/

Toutes les nouvelles