10 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

Northrop Grumman Short Range Air Defense System Selected as Command and Control for US Forces to Counter Aerial Threats

Huntsville, Ala. – July 8, 2020 – Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE: NOC) Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) system has been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) as the interim command and control system for future Counter-Small Unmanned Aerial System (C-sUAS) procurements.

The decision follows the findings of a service board established by the DOD's Joint Counter-Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-sUAS) Office to evaluate and provide an order-of-merit list for “best-of-breed” systems to counter small drones.

The down-select board was comprised of representatives from the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Special Operations Command, and senior representatives from the acquisition, technical, operational and other communities. FAAD C2 will serve as the current joint common C-sUAS C2 platform while an enduring solution is developed.

“Our FAAD C2 has been saving lives at Forward Operating Bases and locations around the world since 2005,” said Kenn Todorov, vice president and general manager, combat systems and mission readiness, Northrop Grumman. “FAAD C2 continuously evolves to defend against new threats like small unmanned aerial systems and will continue to be the gold standard for protection of our troops whether stationed at bases or on the move.”

FAAD C2 is a battle-proven C2 system, deployed in several theaters of operation for the C-UAS and C-RAM (Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar) missions for its proven performance and flexibility that enables easy integration with available sensors, effectors and warning systems to launch rapid, real-time defense against short range and maneuvering threats.

It also has been selected as the C2 system for the Army's Initial Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (IM-SHORAD) platforms. FAAD-C2 is built on the open architecture common to the Northrop Grumman all-domain C4I solution ecosystem and will ultimately converge into the US Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS).

Northrop Grumman solves the toughest problems in space, aeronautics, defense and cyberspace to meet the ever evolving needs of our customers worldwide. Our 90,000 employees define possible every day using science, technology and engineering to create and deliver advanced systems, products and services.

Media Contact
Bridget Slayen
703-556-2224
Bridget.Slayen@ngc.com

View source version on Northrop Grumman: https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-short-range-air-defense-system-selected-as-command-and-control-for-us-forces-to-counter-aerial-threats

Sur le même sujet

  • US Air Force’s new trainer jet could become its next light-attack or aggressor aircraft

    12 mars 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    US Air Force’s new trainer jet could become its next light-attack or aggressor aircraft

    By: Valerie Insinna ORLANDO, Fla. — The U.S. Air Force's new T-X jets could be more than just trainers, with aggressor or light-attack missions now on the table for the Boeing-made plane, the head of Air Combat Command said Thursday. Although buying new T-X trainers to replace the more than 50-year-old T-38 fleet still remains a top priority for that program, the service is beginning to explore whether the T-X could be procured for other uses, Gen. Mike Holmes said at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium. “You could imagine a version of the airframe that could be equipped as a light fighter. You can imagine a version that is equipped as an adversary air-training platform,” he told reporters during a roundtable. "At the informal level, I have some guys that work for me that are thinking through what the requirement might be for those different versions. When or if that transitions and becomes something more formal will depend on a lot of things,” he said, adding that one of those variables is the budget. So what T-X variants could the Air Force pursue? A light-attack T-X The Air Force still hasn't made clear its path forward on the light-attack experiment, but leaders have said they want to broaden the effort to include aircraft beyond the turboprop planes, which were the focus of the first experiments. The T-X, or a low-cost jet like it, could have a role, said Holmes, who declined to get into specifics until the fiscal 2020 budget is released with more details. "An airplane like that, like all the airplanes that competed in the T-X category, an airplane like that at that size and cost per flying hour and capability is something I think we should definitely look at as we go forward in the experiment,” he said. In the first round of light-attack experiments in 2017, the Air Force evaluated one light fighter —Textron's Scorpion jet — but ultimately eschewed it in favor of turboprops like the A-29 and AT-6. While the Scorpion brought with it some added capabilities that the turboprops couldn't replicate — like increased speed and maneuverability, and an internal bay that can host a variety of plug-and-play sensors — the AT-6 and A-29 had two major advantages over the Scorpion. Both are cheaper to buy and already have existing production lines, while the Scorpion has not been purchased by any country. Boeing's T-X won't be grappling with those same challenges. For one, the T-X trainer program gives it a built-in customer dedicated to buying at least 350 planes, covering the cost of setting up a production line and pushing down the price per plane. Holmes also noted that Boeing incorporated its Black Diamond production initiative into the T-X design process. Black Diamond aims to drastically cut production costs by pulling in new manufacturing techniques and technologies from the company's commercial side. “Then if you look at the size of the fleet, if you have more airplanes that are based on a common platform, that almost always brings economies of scale that make it cheaper to operate those airplanes and sustain them for a long time,” Holmes added. Still, an upgunned T-X may be more expensive from a cost standpoint, and it will have to be something that international militaries are interested in buying — and can afford. “We don't have any conclusion about whether that would fit for what we're looking for at a cost point,” Holmes acknowledged. “And as [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein] talks about, the primary or at least one of the primary components of anything we're going to look at with light attack is going to be how our partners feel about it.” An ‘aggressor' T-X to play the baddie The Air Force plans to award contracts this year to a number of companies that provide “red air” training that simulates how an adversary fights in air-to-air combat, but the service believes its requirement could grow even larger, necessitating the purchase of a new aggressor plane. When the T-X program was still a competition between multiple companies, the Air Force downplayed the T-X as an option for a future aggressor aircraft. However, now that a contract has been awarded, the service is taking a look at whether the new trainer could fit requirements, Holmes said at the conference. The Air Combat Command head spelled out his idea in more depth in a January article in War on the Rocks. The T-X is slated to replace the T-38 Talon, but because flying the Talon is more like operating a 1950s-era fighter than a modern one, only the most very basic fighter tactics can be learned in the seat of that trainer. A T-X, with its flying and sensor capabilities, is much closer to a modern day fighter, and Holmes hypothesized that much of the training that occurs once a pilot starts flying an F-15, F-16, F-22 or F-35 could actually be done inside the T-X. It could also take over “some of or all of the adversary aircraft training requirements for nearby fighter units,” he wrote. “This accelerated seasoning and increased adversary air sortie generation is possible because the T-X's lower operating cost — presently expected to be less than half the cost per hour of a fourth-generation fighter, and perhaps a fifth the cost of a fifth-generation fighter — allows the pilots to train more for the same, or less, cost.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/afa-air-space/2019/03/06/air-forces-new-trainer-jet-could-become-its-next-light-attack-or-aggressor-aircraft/

  • General Dynamics Mission Systems Continues to Provide U.S. Army with Shelters for Austere Environments

    11 octobre 2019 | International, Terrestre

    General Dynamics Mission Systems Continues to Provide U.S. Army with Shelters for Austere Environments

    October 9, 2019 - Fairfax, VA. – The U.S. Army has selected General Dynamics Mission Systems to provide current generation Army Standard Family (ASF) Shelters, one-side and two-side expandable, and Modified Extendable Rigid Wall Shelters (MERWS) via a firm-fixed price contract valued at $66 million. The estimated completion date of the contract is June 24, 2024. The shelters will be used worldwide by the Army to support applications such as command posts, kitchens, maintenance shops and medical facilities. Their lightweight design and rugged durability enable them to operate in the most extreme environments. The addition of the MERWS requirements will provide greater shelter capacity for deployable conference and communication centers. In anticipation of the Army's growing requirements, General Dynamics is designing the modernized Army Standard Tactical Shelter (ASTS) to be quickly deployed on the ground or on the Army's Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, enabling rapid deployment and increased mobility. Currently under development, these next generation of ASF shelters will cost significantly less than the current ASF shelters and increase many operating features such as nine-high stacking versus six-high which enables greater transportability. They will have a larger interior operating space and will be lighter than the currently used M1087 Expansible Van, reducing fuel and maintenance costs for the vehicles transporting them. “For over forty years we have provided cost-efficient, durable shelters to meet the changing needs of the Army,” said Jared Strait, a Director of General Dynamics Mission Systems. “The new Army Standard Tactical Shelter – Expandable will provide the Army with the essential flexibility and mobility they need to quickly transport, deploy, and move shelters to support their missions.” General Dynamics Mission Systems is a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD). For more information about General Dynamics Mission Systems, please visit gdmissionsystems.com and follow us on Twitter @GDMS. View source version on General Dynamics Mission Systems: https://gdmissionsystems.com/en/articles/2019/10/09/general-dynamics-provides-army-shelters-for-austere-environments

  • Here’s how the Army acquisition chief plans to equip soldiers for the next war

    11 janvier 2019 | International, Terrestre

    Here’s how the Army acquisition chief plans to equip soldiers for the next war

    By: Todd South In the last year, the Army has embarked on several major modernization goals, creating cross-functional teams for major priorities and the new four-star Army Futures Command, the first such effort in decades. Bruce Jette has served as the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, and during that time he helped shepherd the Army's efforts to modernize following almost two decades of war. On Thursday, Jette sat down with reporters at a Defense Writers Group meeting to discuss the Army's ongoing modernization work. Your office now coordinates with the recently created Army Futures Command and the cross-functional teams. What is a concrete example of how work in priority areas has changed with the addition of these new organizations? I'll give you a prime example. In the past, we looked at air defense as systems. The way you do air defense [is], okay, I've got this altitude, that altitude and that altitude. I need a system that works at those altitudes. Okay, you told me to develop and build a system that can deal with a threat at this altitude, that altitude or another altitude. They were standalone concepts. The integration of them in a battlespace was purely done at the operator level. So, when I deliver a system under that methodology, I give you the Patriot battery. [It] stands alone, all you've got to do is put fuel in the thing, a couple of soldiers, and the thing works. So, we've taken a look at the overall threat environment. The threat environment has become more complicated. It's not just tactical ballistic missiles or jets or helicopters. Now we've got UAVs, we've got swarms, we've got cruise missiles, we've got rockets, artillery, mortar. I've got to find a way to integrate all of this. So, using the cross-functional teams, the technical side has come back and said, “Listen, normally if you want to deal with some of the inbounds that are not missiles, things like rockets, artillery and mortars, the radars that come with the Patriot battery are not the same radars you need to see RAM. Oh, by the way, we were working on this thing for the air defense that's called Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, delivering next December, systems that are deployable.” So, I don't deliver you a Patriot battery anymore — I deliver you missile systems; I deliver you radars; I deliver you a command-and-control architecture. They all integrate, and any of the C2 components can fire any of the sets, leverage any of the sensor systems to employ an effector against any of the threats. This has positioned us to put artificial intelligence in the backside to optimize against the threat that we see in the aggregate. What role does artificial intelligence play in the work that your office is doing, especially in Army technology? AI is critically important. You'll hear a theme inside of ASA(ALT), “Time is a weapon.” Undersecretary [of the Army] Ryan McCarthy has been active in positioning for being able to pick up on some of these critical new technology areas. AFC has responsibility to focus on AI for requirements and research. We've established a center at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for AI, and AFC has established a uniformed person and he's trying to put his arms around AI in an operational context and what has to go into the background. Meantime, the undersecretary and I and ASA(ALT) are going to be establishing for the Army a managerial approach to this. We're trying to structure an AI architecture that will become enduring and will facilitate our ability to allocate resources and conduct research and implementation of those AI capabilities throughout the force. There are AI efforts ongoing, it's just that we need to organize for combat, so to speak. So, here's one issue that we're going to run into. People get worried about whether a weapons system has AI controlling the weapon. And there are some constraints about what we're allowed to do with AI. Here's your problem: If I can't get AI involved with being able to properly manage weapons systems and firing sequences, then in the long run I lose the time window. An example is let's say you fire a bunch of artillery at me, and I need to fire at them, and you require a man in the loop for every one of those shots. There's not enough men to put in the loop to get them done fast enough. So, there's no way to counter those types of shots. So how do we put AI hardware and architecture but do proper policy? Those are some of the wrestling matches we're dealing with right now. Last year your office moved from an annual program review process to adding in monthly meetings to evaluate program progress. What's been the result of this change? Much less pain. We have System Acquisition Review reporting. We report to Congress on our Major Defense Acquisition Programs every year, and we have to tell them how it's going. At each level, we have certification requirements. In that process of doing those reports, we do these program reviews. I do basically a mini SAR review every six weeks with the entire Army staff senior leadership, with the secretary and chief present. If you figure out what's important and make a way to put metrics and reporting processes together, it makes it so much less painful. We report regularly, we report often, we report any change. If any change occurs that I need [the Army secretary] to know about, if it's a significant one, he gets an email that day, then an information paper comes to follow up, and then we'll update him at the next briefing. And then if it's an issue that's an ongoing one, then we go ahead and ensure things are done. In some cases, he gets in the plane and has flown up to meet with the CEO of the company. The [Army] secretary is very much about making us much more accessible to industry. Dinner every Monday night with a CEO of a company has been everything from a big defense contracting company to a second- or third-tier supplier. To know what did we do that we could do better, and what did we not ask for that we should be asking for? This much deeper involvement is making it much easier to keep on track. How are new approaches, such as ‘racking and stacking' groups of Army acquisitions and programs, being evaluated by senior leadership? We began something we call the deep dives. Funding is broken up into Program Element Groups, or PEGs, or groupings. Procurement is one of the PEGs. Money comes with different constraints on what we can and can't use it for. To manage those priorities and comply with the law, we have these PEGs. All procurement-style money gets managed through the equipping PEG. Last year, the secretary and the chief and I sat and went through every single program and said, “why are we doing this?” Because the truth of the matter is programs have momentum. So, why are we doing that? Because we did it last year. Do we need it? Is it the most important thing? Should we reallocate that funding against something else? We did this through all of the PEGs and prioritized all of the funding allocations for the Army. It was a very deliberate process we went through last year for the secretary and the chief to go through those things and prioritize where does the Army's operational effectiveness come from and are we properly funding and how much of that is just because of momentum and what should we do about it? We did that and a series of deep dive follow ups through the year. None of that stuff's been announced, and I'm not going to be the one to do it. That's the secretary's prerogative. He's got to go over and talk with Congress, tell them why we're doing things and sort through those pieces before he starts putting out details of what got cut and what got skinnied down or what got plussed up. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/01/10/heres-how-the-army-acquisition-chief-plans-to-equip-soldiers-for-the-next-war

Toutes les nouvelles