6 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval
By: Michael D. Brasseur , Rob Murray , and Sean Trevethan
Last December, at their meeting in London, NATO leaders declared: “To stay secure, we must look to the future together. We are addressing the breadth and scale of new technologies to maintain our technological edge, while preserving our values and norms.” These two sentences were, in part, a nod to a significant piece of work the alliance is undertaking within the broader mandate of alliance innovation — NATO's Maritime Unmanned Systems Initiative.
Granted, on its own this sounds both technical and narrow within the context of emerging technology, a context that includes: artificial intelligence, data, space, hypersonic weapons, bio technologies, quantum research, autonomy and more. So why are maritime unmanned systems relevant now? Simply put, developing the numbers of manned submarines, aircraft and ships required to keep pace with potential adversaries is simply not economically viable (almost $3 billion per Virginia-class U.S. submarine).
Not since the Cold War has NATO needed the volume of maritime forces to protect our seas and oceans from would-be foes.
NATO's areas of interest are expanding. As climate change affects the Arctic, new maritime routes are being created, which Russia in particular is exploiting with its submarines and ships. This matters because it exposes a new flank on NATO's high-north periphery, and if left unchecked is a potential vulnerability whilst also being a potential opportunity; this, coupled with an increasing need to protect our undersea data infrastructure means NATO's geostrategic responsibilities continue to grow.
Therefore, if allies are to reinforce NATO's maritime posture, deter Russian aggression, guard against Chinese activity, and protect both critical national infrastructure and our sea lines of communication, NATO must do things differently and at the speed of relevance.
NATO's Maritime Unmanned Systems Initiative was agreed by 13 defense ministers in October 2018. Since then, the initiative's success has attracted the participation of three more allies and garnered significant interest from all of NATO's maritime nations. The political agreement struck in 2018 provided the mandate for NATO to bring together disparate strands of common work ongoing within nations. NATO, acting as a network, enabled allies to become greater than the sum of their parts.
The focus is threefold: utilize world-leading research to increase allied interoperability between conventional forces and unmanned drones; establish new tactics for our sailors to truly leverage these technologies; and develop secure digital communications for military drones across all domains (air, sea and land). Addressing these priorities together will enable this effort to be scaled across the alliance, at pace.
To date, the speed of this effort has been breathtaking. So much so that even the United States and the United Kingdom — two allies who have invested the most in this area — are using the NATO initiative as a catalyst for their own national efforts. The last 12-plus months has seen the creation of a NATO project office, a governance body, as well as the planning and successful execution of the world's largest and most complex maritime unmanned systems exercise off the Portuguese coast in September 2019. This event brought together the very best from our navies, industry, scientific institutes and academia. The results were hugely impressive, with many “world firsts” including maritime unmanned systems augmenting conventional forces through multiple scenarios.
We now have vast swaths of insight and information to start achieving those three goals of improving interoperability, enhancing our tactics and developing secure communications. The goal of improving allied interoperability is actually about enhancing standards. A topic often overlooked at the policy level but critical to the DNA of the NATO alliance. Standards drive interoperability, which in turn drives readiness, which ultimately aids deterrence.
As NATO leads the development of new technologies, so too must come new standards that our industries and military can implement. Open architectures will be key, but allies and industry need to realize that we need to solve problems — not address requirements. No perfect solution will ever be delivered on the first attempt. The alliance will need to both innovate and iterate on operations in order to maintain advantage. This may be a cultural shift to some acquisition purists who are used to developing complex warships over 20-plus-year time frames.
However, the challenge remains our ability to scale. With this project we have an agile global team functioning across multiple national and allied bureaucracies, each with their own culture and ways of working. Through engagement and investment, this team is yielding disproportionate results. Indeed, 2019 demonstrated what can be done with some imagination, effort and focus. But continual growth at speed will require faith by allies to maintain the course. Such is the nature of true change and innovation.
There is a lot to do, and the stakes are high. Near-peer competitors are once again very real. Despite the global lockdown caused by the new coronavirus, COVID-19, the initiative continues to progress through synthetic networks and simulation, driven by passion and intent. Our economy, our data and its infrastructure still need protecting, now more than ever. This effort strives to accelerate maritime unmanned systems into NATO's arsenal to patrol the vast swaths of ocean and offset evolving threats. Success will be seen because it is being built on allied nations' shared values and norms, the same values and norms that NATO leaders recognized in London last year.
Michael D. Brasseur is the director of naval armaments cooperation for the U.S. mission to NATO. He is also the first director of NATO's “startup,” the Maritime Unmanned Systems Innovation and Coordination Cell. Rob Murray is the head of innovation at NATO Headquarters. Sean Trevethan is the fleet robotics officer of the British Royal Navy, working in the future capability division at Navy Command Headquarters in Portsmouth, England.
17 juin 2022 | International, Naval
Israeli company Spear has unveiled a new drone that launches from a submarine and loiters for nearly an hour, providing surveillance while the launch platform remains submerged.
7 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial
After decades of building traditional helicopters in traditional ways, contractors must get ready for the Army's new high-speed Future Vertical Lift aircraft. Small makers of key parts need help. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 06, 2020 at 2:14 PM WASHINGTON: What worries the Army's aviation acquisition chief as he helps industry get ready to build a revolutionary new generation of aircraft in the midst of a global pandemic? “It's the mom and pop shops,” Patrick Mason said today. “It's the Tier 3 suppliers, typically on the hardware side.” “Those are the ones we remain focused on, because those are those are the ones that can end up in a single point failure,” the program executive officer for Army aviation continued. “That's what we're doing right now through COVID and we're going to continue to do that as we look ...to Future Vertical Lift.” While the big Tier 1 prime contractors should be fine, they depend on smaller Tier 2 suppliers for key components, and they depend on yet smaller Tier 3 suppliers. As you trace the provenance of a crucial component down that supply chain, you all too often find a single point of failure. That's some tiny, easily overlooked company that happens to have the only people who know how to build a particular part, like an actuator or a valve, or the only one who can apply a particular heat treatment or protective coating to someone else's part so it can survive the stresses of flight. It would be easier if the Army was just winding down production of one kind of traditional helicopter and ramping up another. Then industry could build any new parts required in the old way. But Future Vertical Lift is about building new kinds of aircraft in new ways. Even the most traditional-looking competitor, Bell's proposal for the FARA scout helicopter, is being designed, built, and tested using new digital tools. Those tools allow much greater precision and efficiency than traditional blueprints, but only for facilities that have the necessary technology installed. Bell and its rivals, Sikorsky and Boeing, are also all eager to use 3D printing and other advanced manufacturing techniques to improve the performance and reliability of key parts while reducing their cost. That's another set of new technologies that small firms can't easily afford. Will increasing sales of drones help make up the revenue? In addition to the optionally manned FARA scout and FLRAA transport, which will have human crews aboard for most missions, FVL is also building a whole family of completely unmanned aircraft. The major companies can get in on much of that business, Mason said, but some of their smaller suppliers can't. If you build electronics or write flight control software, then. you can work on either manned or unmanned aircraft. But, Mason said, if you specialize in building a particular kind of hardware for manned aircraft, most drones are so much smaller that they use entirely different systems, such electric actuators instead of hydraulics. So for small manufacturing shops, he said, “there's less synergy.” Mason's concerns were well supported by a study of the FVL industrial base by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, released today. “The primes are all in,” said Andrew Hunter, director of defense industrial studies at CSIS, who hosted yesterday's call, “[but] it's a big challenge for those Tier 3 and lower suppliers to make this transition.” During months of workshops with industry, “the concern that we heard expressed repeatedly was lower down the supply chain, [with] Tier 3 and lower suppliers,” Hunter said. “It's an expensive investment that they may be challenged to raise the capital to do, [and] it certainly will involve retraining their workforce to use these new manufacturing techniques.” “Industry has to see they're going to get a return on that investment,” he said. “Even optimistic management who are true believers and think they are definitely going to get a return on this investment because they're going to win [FVL contracts], they've still got to justify it to the banks. They've still got to justify it to their corporate boards.” Changing The Rules What complicates the business case for contractors is that the Army wants a new approach, not just to building the new aircraft, but also to how it keeps them flying. Over an aircraft's decades in service, the long tail of operations, maintenance, and upgrades dwarfs the up-front cost of research, development, and acquisition. While the CSIS study calculated that the Army could afford to build the Future Vertical Lift if budgets remain near historical averages – not guaranteed in the wake of the pandemic – the bigger risk is whether or not the service can control those Operations & Sustainment costs in the long term. Army Futures Command's director for aviation modernization, Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, said he was confident that extensive physical prototyping and digital modeling would help the service get a handle on those costs. “Our requirements... are still in draft form, so if we need to trade one away to maintain our budgets, we will do that,” he said. “We are going to understand to the greatest degree possible what our O&S costs are and make sure that it's within our budget.” For helicopters, Hunter said, O&S is typically 65 percent of the total cost over the lifetime of a program. Now, not all that money goes to aerospace contractors, since sizable chunk goes to pay military maintenance personnel, buy fuel, and so on. But contracts to sustain existing aircraft are a more important revenue stream for most contractors than actually building new ones. While projected spending on R&D (blue) and procurement (red) rise and fall, remaining under $2.5 billion a year, Operations & Sustainment costs (green) remain largely constant at over $7.5 billion — a crucial source of cash for industry. (CSIS graphic) So any Army effort to economize on operations & sustainment hits contractors where they live. What's more, the Army isn't just trying to squeeze savings out of the existing process; it's changing the rules of the game. Historically, companies could bid low to build a new weapons system because, once they got the contract, they had a de facto monopoly on maintaining and upgrading that system for decades. Now the Defense Department is pushing hard to break this “vendor lock” in two main ways: It's increasingly requiring companies to hand over their intellectual property and technical data. The government can then give that data to potential competitors trying to build cheaper alternatives, as on the Army-run Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program. Second, it's requiring companies to make their products compatible with government standards for how different components fit together physically and connect electronically, with the aim of creating Modular Open System Architectures where you can swap out one company's component and replace it with another vendor's. Developing a common MOSA for all manned and unmanned aircraft is a top priority for the Army's Future Vertical Lift initiative. “Part of what we're doing [over] the next year, year and a half, is the strategy associated with the operational availability, that we want out of these platforms, the intellectual property we want to obtain,” Mason said. “What's the valuation of the IP, the intellectual property? Because intellectual property drives their ability to control the aftermarket, and the aftermarket is where you see the year over year cash flow [that's] critical to most of their business models.” “As you look at Modular Open System Architecture...the business case and the business model associated with it is something that we're working through with industry right now,” Mason said. “It is critical that we have the right incentive structure, it is critical that we provide the right framework so that industry continues to invest and they continue to see a return on that invested capital.” To prevail in future conflicts, “we can't afford not to do Future Vertical Lift,” Brig. Gen. Rugen said. “What this report talks to is national interest we have in preserving the rotorcraft industrial base as we go forward.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/armys-shift-to-fvl-poses-big-risks-for-small-suppliers/
28 septembre 2023 | International, Aérospatial
Bucharest plans to equip three squadrons with the fifth-generation fighter, or 48 aircraft, in two stages, according to defense officials.