Military researchers think spider silk may keep US troops lighter and cooler in combat

Sur le même sujet

• 

  4 avril 2024 | International, Aérospatial

  Bolster sanctions to stop Iran’s growing military space capabilities

  Opinion: The entire free world needs to fully appreciate the potential danger of Iran’s increasing launch capability.

• 

  9 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Cyber Command will get a new version of its training platform this fall

  Mark Pomerleau U.S. Cyber Command's new training platform is slated to deliver the second iteration this fall providing additional capabilities and user capacity, program officials said. The Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE) is an online client that allows Cyber Command's warriors to log on from anywhere in the world to conduct individual or collective cyber training as well as mission rehearsal. The program is being run by the Army on behalf of the joint cyber force and Cyber Command. Officials delivered the first version of the program to Cyber Command in February and the environment was used for the first time in Cyber Command's premier annual tier 1 exercise Cyber Flag in June. The second version is expected to include additional capabilities, including allowing more users to conduct team or individual training. “Things like to be able to schedule, have a calendar to be able to auto-schedule things, to be able to allocate resources because right now it's you can get in and you can do it but how do you deconflict? If you're running a team based event across x number of services how does somebody else come in and do an individual training,” Amit Kapadia, chief engineer for the program, told C4ISRNET in an interview. “Do you have the right infrastructure underneath?” Kapadia added that during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a surge in platform use due to the remote working, thus, by the end of this year, the program seeks to push additional compute and network capabilities. Leaders are targeting final testing in September and then a roll out in late fall for version 2.0. The program has also sought to deliver incremental capability along the way through what it calls cyber innovation challenges. These are competitions to awards and layer new technologies onto the platform. There was a notice informing industry of the fourth such innovation challenge released recently. Officials told C4ISRNET they expect to release a formal solicitation around August, with plans to award contracts by the end of the year or early next year. The officials noted that just like with the previous innovation challenges, there could be multiple vendors awarded and specifically non-traditional defense vendors. Moreover, they also anticipate to continue these challenges for the foreseeable future even when a vendor is selected to be the integrator for PCTE through what's known as the Cyber Training, Readiness, Integration, Delivery and Enterprise Technology (TRIDENT), a contract vehicle to offer a more streamlined approach for procuring the military's cyber training capabilities. The contract is valued at up to $957 million. This approach, officials said, prevents vendor lock and ensures the program is at the tip of the technological spear. The fourth cyber innovation challenge seeks to ask industry for assistance in traffic generation – which means emulating fake internet traffic on the platform – and assessment, which was a key requirement directly from Cyber Command. “I would say what we've been driven towards right now are high priorities coming down from [Cyber Command commander] Gen. [Paul] Nakasone and Cyber Command for things like CMF assessment,” Kapadia said. “They want to be able now ... all these reps and sets that are happening within PCTE, how am I assessing the performance of the individuals in my teams.” An integrated and agile approach Since the platform was delivered to Cyber Command in February, command leaders have officially taken the burden of running training exercises from the program office, freeing it up to focus on pursuing new technologies and fixes as well as the overall acquisition. In the past, the program office worked with specific units to conduct training events in order to stress the platform and gain valuable feedback. Now, Cyber Command has created what is called the Joint Cyber Training Enterprise, which is the non-material companion to the PCTE platform and seeks to operate and synchronize training hosted by PCTE for the joint force. “The JCTE is a lot like the combat training center ops group where they are managing the platform, they are running the platform, they are running the training,” Lt. Col. Thomas Monaghan, product manager of cyber resiliency and training at Program Executive Office Simulation, Training and Instrumentation, told C4ISRNET. “So we delivered the platform to them and they're using it I would probably say on a weekly basis. They're doing cyber training events that we don't manage that anymore. We don't stand them up. The platform is being used, we're able to concentrate on specific capability, platform enhancements.” JCTE has formalized the cyber training and use of the environment while also coordinating which cyber mission force units need to conduct which types of training, something the program office wasn't equipped to do. Monaghan said his office is in almost hourly, or at least daily, contact with JCTE to better understand what users like, don't like or needs to be fixed. “We've got the program office, we've got the user community, we've got the operational arm of the user community, which is JCTE, we've got the Army capability manager codifying the requirements all working together. We literally talk to each other at least daily,” Monaghan said. “That direct feedback loop is one continuous circle of information. That's the only way a program this robust can be successful.” Program officials said they gained valuable insights from the recently concluded Cyber Flag, which created roughly six months worth of data. They explained that while not every element worked exactly as planned, the nature of the program allows for incremental and ongoing adjustments to be made. By leveraging specific flexible acquisition tools, the program is not as rigid as other typical military platforms, such as tanks. “It's a perfect one for PCTE because it created that box basically saying in laymen's terms we have no idea what this specifically looks like but we have some eye level things that it should do,” Liz Bledsoe, deputy product manager, told C4SIRNET, regarding the types of acquisition mechanisms PCTE is being run under. Monaghan added: “That's the way the platform and the program were structured when the requirements were written, some of them were listed as evolving or threat based or capability ... They're ever evolving, ever enhancing based off the needs of the cyber mission force.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/07/07/cyber-command-will-get-a-new-version-of-its-training-platform-this-fall/

• 

  14 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Four rocket companies are competing for Air Force funding, and it is war

  By ERIC BERGER Monday marked the deadline for four US rocket companies to submit bids for Air Force contracts, encompassing all national security launches from 2022 to 2026. This is a hugely consequential and much-contested bid process that has implications for the American aerospace industry for the next decade and beyond. The Air Force is seeking two providers for about two dozen launches. The prime contractor will receive 60% of the launches while the secondary contractor claims the remaining 40%. As the US military pays a premium for launch contracts to its nine reference orbits, this guaranteed revenue is extremely valuable to US companies aspiring to run a profitable launch business. The lead-up to Monday's deadline has included heavy political lobbying from the four companies: United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Northrop Grumman. As a result of this, Congress is considering some changes to the Air Force's procurement policy, including an on-ramp for a third provider during the 2022 to 2026 period. But so far, the Air Force is resisting this. Here's a look at the four bidders and what is at stake for each of them. United Launch Alliance United Launch Alliance—a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that enjoyed a monopoly on national security launches before the emergence of SpaceX—may be bidding for its life. To wean itself off its costly Delta boosters (as well as the Russian rocket engines that go with its workhorse Atlas V rocket), ULA has been developing the Vulcan rocket to cut costs while maintaining performance. The company says the Vulcan will be ready for its first flight in 2021. "Vulcan Centaur will provide higher performance and greater affordability while continuing to deliver our unmatched reliability and orbital accuracy precision from our treasured cryogenic Centaur upper stage," ULA's chief, Tory Bruno, said in a news release Monday. "ULA is the best partner for national security space launch, and we are the only provider to demonstrate experience flying to all orbits including the most challenging heavy-class missions, providing the bedrock foundation for the lowest risk portfolio of two launch service providers for the US Air Force." With increasing competition from SpaceX, Europe's Arianespace, Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Russian launch vehicles, ULA has been unable to capture much of the commercial market for satellite launches in the last decade. Therefore, it has largely been reliant on government business, mostly from the military. But ULA also relies on NASA through its science missions and lifting cargo and crew missions to the International Space Station. If the company does not emerge victorious from this competition, it faces an uncertain future unless Vulcan can become commercially viable. Moreover, ULA will lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars in government money to finalize Vulcan if it does not receive an award. Historically, Boeing and Lockheed have been stingy parents, and whether or not they would pay to complete Vulcan is unclear. One intriguing twist with ULA's bid is that its Vulcan rocket will use the BE-4 rocket engine, which is being developed and manufactured by Blue Origin—one of the four competitors in the Air Force bidding process. Blue Origin has said the Air Force competition was designed to unfairly benefit ULA. SpaceX The Hawthorne, California-based rocket company is the only bidder proposing to use rockets that are already flying—the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters. This family of rockets has had a string of 49 successful launches since a static fire accident in September 2016, and according to SpaceX, it can meet all of the Air Force's desired orbits and payload specifications. "SpaceX means to serve as the Air Force's long-term provider for space launch, offering existing, certified, and proven launch systems capable of carrying out the full spectrum of national security space-launch missions and requirements," said the company's president and chief operating officer, Gwynne Shotwell. Since the Air Force agreed to admit SpaceX to the national security launch competition in 2015, the company has won several contracts for key missions and begun flying them for the military. These include the National Reconnaissance Office Launch 76, Orbital Test Vehicle 5, Global Positioning System III-2, and STP-2 flights. SpaceX also likely will offer the government the lowest price on service to orbit. However, in its criteria for awarding missions, the Air Force listed price among the last of its considerations. Due to its lower price point, especially with is reusable Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX has considerable commercial business to offset the loss of Air Force contracts. But it would hurt financially, all the same. Blue Origin Jeff Bezos' rocket company has bid its very large New Glenn rocket for the Air Force missions. However, when this rocket will begin flying is not entirely clear, as there are questions about whether it will be ready by the beginning of the 2022 contracting period. What is clear is that Blue Origin does not believe the US Air Force has created a fair bidding process. Already, the company has filed a "pre-award" protest with the US Government Accountability Office. "The Air Force is pursuing a flawed acquisition strategy for the National Security Space Launch program," Blue Origin said, according to SpaceNews. The Air Force decision to award contracts to just two companies creates a "duopoly," Blue Origin says, and it limits commercial development of strategic US assets such as rocket engines and boosters. Bezos has been investing about $1 billion a year of his own money into Blue Origin, which has largely been used to support development of the BE-4 engine and New Glenn rocket. He is likely to continue development of the New Glenn rocket without Air Force funding, but company officials say it is not fair to hold their wealthy founder against their bid. Northrop Grumman Northrop has been developing the Omega rocket for this competition since at least 2016. The Omega vehicle differs from the other entrants in the competition as its first and second stages, as well as side-mounted boosters, are powered by solid-rocket motors rather than liquid-fueled engines. The bet by Northrop is that the US military, through its national security launch contract, would want to support one of the nation's most critical suppliers of solid-rocket motors for intercontinental ballistic missiles. Northrop officials have not said whether they would continue development of the Omega rocket if Northrop were to lose out on the Air Force contract. Northrop's bid suffered a setback in May when an "anomaly" occurred during test firing of its solid-propellant Castor 600 rocket motor, the Omega rocket's first stage. From a video provided by the company, a major part of the rocket's large nozzle appeared to break apart, blasting debris around the area. Afterward, a Northrop vice president, Kent Rominger, called the test a success. "It appears everything worked very, very well on this test," he said. "And at the very end when the engine was tailing off, we observed the aft exit cone, maybe a portion of it, doing something a little strange that we need to go further look into." Nevertheless, the test cannot have instilled absolute confidence in the Air Force. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/four-rocket-companies-are-competing-for-air-force-funding-and-it-is-war/