19 décembre 2024 | International, Aérospatial

New US Space Force jammers aim to disrupt China’s SATCOM signals

The Remote Modular Terminals, which disrupt adversary satellites by "yelling in their ear," as one official put it, are cleared for initial fielding,

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2024/12/19/new-us-space-force-jammers-aim-to-disrupt-chinas-satcom-signals/

Sur le même sujet

  • Pourquoi l’armée joue la carte du "Made in France" pour le futur missile de ses hélicoptères Tigre

    17 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Pourquoi l’armée joue la carte du "Made in France" pour le futur missile de ses hélicoptères Tigre

    HASSAN MEDDAH Plutôt que d'acheter de missiles américains ou britanniques, les armées vont investir 700 millions d'euros pour développer un missile de technologie française et commander 500 exemplaires à MBDA et ses sous-traitants. De quoi garantir son autonomie et conforter la filière missilière française avec la création de 600 emplois à la clé. Un acte de souveraineté en terre industrielle. A l'occasion de la visite des installations de MBDA à Bourges (Cher) vendredi 13 novembre, la ministre des Armées Florence Parly a officiellement lancé le programme de développement du futur missile qui équipera les hélicoptères d'attaque Tigre de l'armée de Terre, le MHT (missile haute trame). https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/pourquoi-l-armee-joue-la-carte-du-made-in-france-pour-le-futur-missile-de-ses-helicopteres-tigre.N1027859

  • Gen. Milley is right: The US Army is on the mend

    14 juin 2018 | International, Terrestre

    Gen. Milley is right: The US Army is on the mend

    Last month, in an appearance before the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley provided a notably upbeat assessment of the state of his service. “The Army is on the mend. I can report out to you today, after two and a half years as the chief of staff of the Army, we are in significantly better shape than we were just a short time ago. And that is through the generosity of this Congress and the American people,” he said. Clearly, some of the credit for the Army's improved state of affairs is a result of the recently passed two-year budget, which provided a much-needed increase in resources. The Army has been able to grow its end strength, purchase needed munitions and spare parts, increase training activities, and recapitalize older and damaged equipment. More resources have also enabled the Army force to expand its presence in Europe, increase, albeit modestly, procurement of upgraded Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Strykers, and acquire the new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle. But much of the credit goes to the Army chief of staff himself. About a year and a half ago, I wrote a blog for the National Interest titled “Perhaps the Most Remarkable CSA in More than Half a Century.” It was Gen. Milley who made modernization the measure of success for his tenure as the Army chief of staff. This change in strategic direction came just in time, ahead of the reappearance of great power competition as the greatest threat to this nation's security. Gen. Milley is not alone in his quest. In fact, it is a troika consisting of Secretary of the Army Mark Esper, Under Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarty and the chief that is fashioning a new Army in record time and doing so while simultaneously transforming the Army's acquisition system. This is the proverbial case of changing the car's tires while speeding down the road. The early signs are that the Army modernization is on the mend and the acquisition system is being changed. An important example of these improvements is the Army's Rapid Capabilities Office. Established by the secretary and the chief in August 2016, the RCO is tasked to expedite critical capabilities to the field to meet combatant commanders' needs using alternative contracting mechanisms to deliver technologies in real time to the war fighter. One of the RCO's initial projects was to bring the Army back into the game with respect to electronic warfare. In 12 months, the RCO developed an initial integrated mounted and dismounted EW sensor capability that has been deployed with U.S. forces in Europe. A second phase of the project is underway that will add aerial sensors, additional ground-unit sets and improve functionality. Another program that is proceeding rapidly is a vehicle-mounted, jam-resistant positioning, navigation and timing capability for GPS-challenged environments. Prospective solutions are currently undergoing testing. The chief has directed the RCO to address several new areas. The RCO is working on a long-range cannon concept that may be able to double the range of 155mm howitzers, as well as optical augmentation technology to detect an adversary's anti-tank guided missile day/night sights and loitering munitions that can strike air-defense and artillery emplacements. The Army has been moving rapidly to address many of its critical capability gaps. To meet the challenge posed by hostile aircraft and drones, the Army intends to deploy the first battery of the Maneuver Short Range Air Defense launcher on a Stryker armored vehicle by 2020, five years ahead of schedule. Additional sensors and weapons, including a tactical laser, could be integrated into the new turret by the early 2020s. Tank-automotive and Armaments Command did a rapid assessment of active protection systems. The current plan is to equip at least four brigades of Abrams tanks with the Israeli Trophy system while testing continues on a number of solutions for other armored fighting vehicles. The Army also has used other rapid procurement organizations within the Pentagon. One of these is the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, created in 2016 to push rapid innovation based on leveraging commercial companies. Recently, DIUx led a prototype contract involving upgrades for Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The first production items from it will soon be delivered to the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas. There are other examples of advances in cyberwarfare, soldier systems, networking and long-range precision fires. The central point is that Gen. Milley's vision of the Army's future is turning out to be right. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/13/gen-milley-is-right-the-us-army-is-on-the-mend/

  • For the US Navy, the future of shipbuilding (and warfare) is in the power plant

    14 janvier 2021 | International, Naval

    For the US Navy, the future of shipbuilding (and warfare) is in the power plant

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy wants to buy a next-generation large surface combatant by the end of the 2030s, but its not being built for a new kind of sensor or weapon system. The newly dubbed DDG(X) is being built for power. The Navy has, of course, built ships around advancements in engineering systems before: Nuclear power or steam engines, for example, have led to big leaps in naval design. But the large surface combatant is being built around a significant challenge. Weapons systems of the future such as high-powered electronic warfare systems, laser weapons, and high-powered radars and sensors will put an uneven and sometimes even unpredictable load on a ship's power system. That's pushing the Navy toward an integrated power system, says Rear Adm. Paul Schlise. “We're going to incorporate an Integrated Power System that has the ability to power up the weapons and sensors of the future,” Schlise said during the Surface Navy Association's virtual annual symposium. “[That's] the key to the realm here. It's DDG-1000-like, in some respects in that it'll have that integrated power system, but the most important thing is including the space, weight, power and cooling — reestablishing those margins to incorporate future systems that are not yet mature. “There's a lot of promise in some of those systems, but that integrated power system is the key to incorporating those feature systems that we're looking at, that we think are going to be part of that class of ship.” What is an integrated power system? Mark Vandroff, a former senior director of the National Security Council and a retired Navy captain who was the program manager for the Navy's new DDG Flight III program, said it's a major break from the kind of system used on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. “A major advantage of a ship with an integrated power system is that the power generated by any of the ship's engines can be used for either propulsion or electricity, rather than having engines solely dedicated to one or another.” On today's destroyer, and on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, the ship has separate systems that power the twin propulsion shafts, which turn the ship's propeller and generators that work exclusively to power the ship. An integrated power system, similar to what is on the Zumwalt-class destroyers, uses all the ship's engines to make electricity that turns the propellers and powers the weapons and sensors. The integrated power system on Zumwalt is a new layout that uses advanced induction motors to produce up to 78 megawatts of electrical power, far more than any previous destroyer or cruiser. But the issue with the large surface combatant is a little more complicated than just producing a ton of power. What energy weapons or advanced electronics systems do is put a huge tax on the electrical system of a ship, often requiring more power than the ship is able to produce at one time. So while the integrated power system isn't new, the kinds of demands these new systems will place on the power grid meant to run everything is a new kind of challenge, said Matthew Collette, associate professor of naval architecture and marine engineering at the University of Michigan. Therefore, the Navy must figure out how to best store energy so it can be available to meet unpredictable demands. “The issue is, this is different than integrated electric propulsion, which we've had on cruise ships and offshore supply vessels for two decades at this point, and it works really well,” Collette said. “But on those ships, all the electrical loads are pretty well behaved: They rise and fall slowly, and there's no issues with the stability of the electrical system. “High-powered radars, high-powered electronic warfare, certainly rail guns, the lesser extent lasers — they all ask for power really quickly, faster than a mechanical generator can suddenly produce it. So now you have to think about whether [you] use batteries or flywheels or capacitors or other techniques to get the energy available on the timescale that the load needs.” It's not an insurmountable problem, and it is one the Navy has used elsewhere. The electromagnetic launch system on the Ford-class, which has had its share of technical problems, operates off a flywheel energy storage system. But the new power system already has Congress nervous, and lawmakers are pressuring the Navy to build a land-based engineering site to test out the power and propulsion system before getting too deep into the design work for the ship. Collette said that's a sensible approach, and that on the timeline the Navy is discussing, the technology should be sufficiently advanced to support the new class. “There's been a ton of work done on this, and I think it's certainly something that in the timeframe of a large surface combatant, I would expect would work,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2021/01/13/for-the-us-navy-the-future-of-shipbuilding-and-warfare-is-in-the-power-plant

Toutes les nouvelles