28 février 2023 | International, Terrestre

Northrop, 4 rivals to compete on Army’s future tactical UAS

The U.S. Army is taking five competitors into a prototyping development phase with plans to select a winner for production and fielding at the end.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/land/2023/02/28/northrop-4-rivals-to-compete-on-armys-future-tactical-uas/

Sur le même sujet

  • Army Invites Air Force ABMS To Big Network Test: Project Convergence

    29 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Army Invites Air Force ABMS To Big Network Test: Project Convergence

    This fall's experiment will study how the Army's own weapons can share target data, Gen. Murray said, but in 2021 he wants to add the Air Force's ABMS network. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 28, 2020 at 5:06 PM WASHINGTON: Damn the pandemic, full speed ahead. The four-star chief of Army Futures Command plans to hold a high-tech field test in the southwest desert this fall, COVID-19 or no. Called Project Convergence, the exercise will test sharing of targeting data amongst the Army's newest weapons, including aerial scouts, long-range missile launchers and armored vehicles. The Army also wants to plug in its new anti-aircraft and missile defense systems, AFC head Gen. Mike Murray told reporters, but those technologies are at a critical juncture in their own individual test programs – some of which was delayed by COVID – and they may not be ready on time for this fall. “I'm going to try to drag them all into this,” Murray said. The experiment, set to begin in late August or early September, will definitely include the Army's Artificial Intelligence Task Force, as well as four of its eight modernization Cross Functional Teams. That's Long-Range Precision Fires (i.e. artillery), Future Vertical Lift aircraft (including drones), and the tactical network, he said, plus the Next Generation Combat Vehicle team in “a supporting role.” What about the Air & Missile Defense team? “We'll see,” Murray said. “Right now... I'm very cautious, because of the two major tests they've got going on this fall in terms of IBCS and IMSHORAD.” IBCS is the Army's new command network for air and missile defense units, which had to delay a major field test due to COVID. IMSHORAD is an 8×8 Stryker armored vehicle fitted with anti-aircraft missiles and guns, which Murray said is now delayed “a few months” by software problems. Meanwhile, the Air Force – with some input from the other services – will be testing its own nascent data-sharing network. That's the ambitious Advanced Battle Management System, the leading candidate to be the backbone of a future Joint All-Domain Command & Control (JADC2) network-of-networks linking all the armed services. The Air Force's ABMS experiment will be separate from the Army's Project Convergence exercise happening at roughly the same time this fall, Murray said. But he wants to hold a Convergence test each year from now on, he told reporters, and he wants to bring in ABMS in 2021. “In '20, we're parallel, not interconnected,” he said. “Our desire is to bring them closer and closer together, beginning in '21.” Sensor To Shooter Murray spoke via phone to the Defense Writers Group, along with the Army's civilian chief of acquisition, Bruce Jette. While the two men's roles and organizations are kept distinct by law, they've been joined at the hip on modernization, and Jette – a scientist, engineer, and inventor — is clearly enthused about the experiment. “We are looking at the potential integration of all of our fires into a fires network,” Jette told the listening reporters. Currently, he explained, the Army has one network, AFATDS, to pass data about ground targets to its offensive artillery units – howitzers, rocket launchers, surface-to-surface missiles. Meanwhile, it's developing a different network, IBCS, to share data on flying targets – incoming enemy rockets, missiles, and aircraft – amongst its air and missile defense units. The two networks and the sensors that feed them must meet very different technical demands, since shooting down a missile requires split-second precision that bombarding a tank battalion does not. But there's also great potential for the two to share data and work together. For example, the defensive side can figure out where enemy missiles are launching from, then tell the offensive side so it can blow up the enemy launchers before they fire again. “If I can bring the two of them together,” Jette said, you can use a sensor the Army already developed, bought and fielded to spot targets for one weapon – say, the Q-53 artillery radar – to feed targeting data into a totally different type of weapon – say, a Patriot battery. Artificial intelligence could pull together data from multiple sensors, each seeing the same target in different wavelengths or from a different angle, to build a composite picture more precise than its parts. “We're moving past just simple concepts of sensors and shooters,” Jette said. “How do we get multiple sensors and shooters [integrated] such that we get more out of them than an individual item could provide?” Looking across the Army's 34 top modernization programs, Murray said, “an individual capability is interesting, but the effect is greater than the sum of the parts. There have to be connections between these [programs]. And that's really the secret sauce I'm not going to explain in detail, ever.” Testing, Testing What Murray would share, however, was that the Army got to test a slightly less ambitious sensor-to-shooter link in Europe earlier this year, as part of NATO's Defender 2020 wargames. The field experiment fed data from a wide range of sources – in space, in the air, and on the ground – to an Army howitzer unit, he said. However, the Army had also wanted to experiment with new headquarters and organizations to command and control ultra-long-range artillery, Murray said, and those aspects of the massive exercise had to be cancelled due to COVID. The service is looking at alternative venues, such as its Combat Training Centers, but “it's just hard to replicate what Defender 2020 offered us,” he said. “What we lost was the largest exercise we've done and the largest deployment of forces in a very, very long time.” That makes the stakes even higher for Project Convergence. “You can call it an experiment, you can call it a demonstration,” Murray said. “Right now, the plan is we're going to do this every year... every fall as we continue to mature... this architecture that brings the sensors to the right shooter and through the right headquarters.” While this year's Convergence exercise will focus on the Army, Murray is already working with the Air Force to meld the two next year. “We have been in discussion with the Air Force for the better part of the year on how we integrate with the effort they have going on,” he said. “I was actually out at Nellis the last time they had a live meeting on JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command & Control] with all of the architects of ABMS.” Those discussions made very clear to both the Army and the Air Force participants that “it all comes down to data and it all comes down to the architectures you build,” Murray said. “As Bruce [Jette] talked about, it's not a specific sensor to a specific shooter,” he said. “On a future battlefield... just about everything is going to be a sensor. So how you do you store that data and how do you enable a smart distribution of data to the right shooter? Because we can't build architectures that are relying upon huge pipes and just massive bandwidth to make it work.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/army-invites-air-force-abms-to-big-network-test-project-convergence

  • Royal Australian Air Force and US Air Force technicians on the tools together

    29 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Royal Australian Air Force and US Air Force technicians on the tools together

    For the first time, No. 36 Squadron (36SQN) has worked to get United States Air Force (USAF) C-17A Globemasters back into the air under a new cross-servicing arrangement. Technicians from 36SQN were able to assist the crews of two USAF C-17As on separate tasks in Australia. The work came following both countries agreeing to a C-17A Aircraft Repair and Maintenance Service - Implementing Arrangement (ARMS-IA), which allows RAAF and USAF technicians to work on each other's C-17As. On 4 July , ARMS-IA was enacted to help support a USAF C-17A at RAAF Base Richmond. Warrant Officer (WOFF) Pete Ranson, Warrant Officer Engineering at 36SQN, said the request for assistance came via the Boeing Defence Australia representatives at RAAF Base Amberley. “We supplied a co-pilot Multi-Function Control Panel for the cockpit, fitted it and carried out the associated operational checks to verify the replacement,” WOFF Ranson said. “After that rectification, another unserviceability appeared, and was successfully rectified.” This issue related to a Secondary Flight Control Computer, and saw 36SQN engage fellow RAAF technicians at 37SQN for tooling and consumables. Throughout the repair on the USAF C-17A, RAAF and USAF technicians worked side-by-side. “The issues with the affected aircraft were outside the expertise of the USAF maintenance personnel on that task,” WOFF Ranson said. “The USAF aviation technician trades are more specialised than the RAAF, where we stream to either Aircraft Technician or Avionics Technician.” “We carry a broader experience in a range of tasks, and 36SQN maintenance personnel were able to guide the USAF counterparts in rectifying the jet.” The fix at RAAF Base Richmond came just days after 36SQN technicians assisted another USAF C-17A with a suspected fuel leak fault at Rockhampton. “On that occasion, we sent maintenance personnel to troubleshoot the problem,” WOFF Ranson said. “We found it was a faulty valve and not a fuel leak from the tank, which gave confidence to the USAF crew that they could carry on to an appropriate location to replace the valve.” Group Captain (GPCAPT) Steve Pesce, Officer Commanding No. 86 Wing, said the work of 36SQN technicians had immediately validated the ARMS-IA. “The ARMS-IA recognised the close relationship between RAAF and USAF C-17A communities, and the reality that we operate this aircraft a long way from home,” GPCAPT Pesce said. “Both of these examples witnessed a C-17A getting back on a task much sooner than would have been otherwise possible, which is invaluable support.” “I am very proud of the 36SQN team for the assistance it's rendered to its USAF counterparts.” https://www.jber.jb.mil/News/News-Articles/Article/1917908/royal-australian-air-force-and-us-air-force-technicians-on-the-tools-together/source/GovD/

  • Six considerations from the Defense News Top 100 list

    19 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Six considerations from the Defense News Top 100 list

    By: Byron Callan As usual, the annual Defense News Top 100 rankings shed light on changes in the defense sector, while raising additional questions for all interested parties. The rankings among U.S. firms have been relatively stable, with the primary catalyst for several years worth of change being acquisitions or divestitures. The U.S. order will again change in next year's edition, when Raytheon Technologies appears as a single entity for the first time. Defense News added Chinese enterprises in 2019, and so it's good to see this extended in 2020, as China has the second largest defense budget in the world after the U.S. This year's list raises six points worth highlighting, while observing how relative rankings have changed over time. First: These lists are difficult to compile, as they depend in large part on the willingness of contractors to provide sales data. There are some omissions, which hopefully could show up in future rankings — notably, BWX Technologies, SpaceX, General Atomics, Mantech, Parsons and Kratos for the U.S.; more Japanese firms including Kawasaki Heavy Industries; Navantia of Spain and other European naval shipyards; United Aircraft in Russia; ASC Pty in Australia; and PGZ in Poland. There are other Indian firms as well that would likely qualify. Second: It is intriguing to note how long either Lockheed or its successor Lockheed Martin has been the No. 1 U.S. contractor. It's been at the top of the Defense News list since 2003, and data from annual reports show it has been the top U.S. contractor, by sales, since 1980. Size may matter in perpetuating a No. 1 position, so it is notable that the ratio of Lockheed's defense sales to the second-largest contractor has also increased over the years. For this year's list, Lockheed's defense dollars are 165 percent of Boeing's defense sales; in 1988, they were 130 percent higher than the next largest defense contractor, McDonnell Douglas. Third: As much as it's easy to categorize contractors by their home country, it bears repeating that this a global, multinational business with international sales not just from exports. A look at the Australian defense industry highlights the “multi-domestic” nature of contractors in that country. BAE Systems is listed as a U.K. company, but it derives higher annual sales from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia than from London. And in 2019, Israeli firm Elbit had more of its total sales from North America (28 percent of total) than Israel (24 percent of total). Fourth: While the rankings don't capture the changes in the composition of some of the largest contractors, this may have a bearing on competition in the 2020s. CACI and Leidos still are predominantly services contractors, but some of their recent acquisitions, most significantly the Leidos acquisition of Dynetics, are more product-centric. Fifth: Obviously the rankings only capture the top level of the global defense sector, and in assessing supply chains, resiliency, the pace of innovation and technology ingestion, a far wider net has be cast. A July 2020 report by Israel's INSS observed that Israel's defense industry, which has seen consolidation in recent years, is comprised of “about 600 companies” and employs over 45,000 workers. Much as the rankings of the top contractors are of interest, a more critical assessment of the health and agility of contractors may rest on what's happening with smaller firms. Finally: The question of state, private or public ownership is a sixth factor to weigh. State ownership of Chinese firms and partial government stakes in some of the largest European enterprises has entailed different incentives and goals — it's hard to conclude, given the nature of China's rise, that government ownership of contractors has stymied the development and production of competitive weapons systems, though there's little transparency on efficiency. In the 2020s, it remains to be seen how different and competing ownership shapes future rankings. Byron Callan is a policy research expert at Capital Alpha Partners. He specializes in the defense and aerospace industries. https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/six-considerations-from-the-defense-news-top-100-list/

Toutes les nouvelles