19 octobre 2022 | International, C4ISR

Palantir wins contract to help Army quickly process battlefield data

All Source II is part of a larger effort '€” Intel Apps '€” that includes the Intelligence Support to Targeting and Weather Operational Effects programs.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/industry/2022/10/19/palantir-wins-contract-to-help-army-quickly-process-battlefield-data/

Sur le même sujet

  • Here’s why Boeing is getting $55.5M to fix a problem with the Air Force’s new tanker

    7 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Here’s why Boeing is getting $55.5M to fix a problem with the Air Force’s new tanker

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The Air Force will pay up to $55.5 million for Boeing to redesign the KC-46's boom, but it will cost more than that to field a fix to the problem. According to a Aug. 2 contract announcement, the award will pay for a “system level hardware and software critical design review of the boom telescope actuator redesign,” and Boeing will receive $21 million of the proposed award value immediately. But because the contract has yet to be definitized, Boeing could receive up to $55.5 million once terms of the deal are cemented. And since initial award only covers the redesign of the boom — not the costs of testing, fabricating and retrofitting the new booms on existing aircraft — it stands to reason that the Air Force will owe additional money to Boeing to completely fix the issue. Unlike the other remaining critical deficiencies on the KC-46 program, the Air Force has agreed to foot the cost of fixing the boom problem, as it is a change in the service's initial requirements. Boeing's current boom design meets international standards for thrust resistance, and the Air Force accepted that design at Milestone C in 2016, when the KC-46 was cleared for production. But later flight tests demonstrated that the boom produces too much thrust resistance to refuel the A-10, necessitating a change in design. In January, an Air Force official told Defense News the process of redesigning and manufacturing the new booms could take about two years. The Air Force plans to buy 179 KC-46s over the life of the program. After years of delays due to technical issues, the service signed off to accept the first tanker in January, which was then delivered to McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., later that month. The KC-46 made its first flight for the initial operational test and evaluation phase on June 4 at McConnell AFB. Boeing is on the hook to pay for the other major critical deficiency: a redesign of the Remote Vision System, a collection of cameras and sensors that allow the boom operator to steer the boom into the fuel receptacle of the receiving aircraft. The service became aware of this problem after pilots experienced difficulties directing the boom during refueling, sometimes scraping the surface of the receiver aircraft — a mistake that could compromise the low observable coating of stealth aircraft. Despite this issue, the Air Force has decided to accept KC-46 tankers so that pilots can begin training with the new aircraft. However, the service is withholding up $28 million per plane in order to incentivize Boeing to move quickly on a redesigned RVS. About $360 million has been withheld so far, according to Defense One. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/08/06/heres-why-boeing-is-getting-555m-to-fix-a-problem-with-the-air-forces-new-tanker/

  • Oshkosh wins contract to modernize US Army’s heavy tactical vehicles

    1 avril 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Oshkosh wins contract to modernize US Army’s heavy tactical vehicles

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Oshkosh Defense has won a $346 million award to modernize the U.S. Army's fleet of heavy tactical vehicles, according to a March 30 company statement. The company will recapitalize Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT) and Palletized Load System (PLS) trucks with updated technology and safety features. Under the contract, Oshkosh will also build new PLS trailers. Upgrading heavy tactical trucks aligns with the service's need to support operations across multiple domains against near-peer adversaries. “Whether they're hauling rocket launchers and missile defense systems, or transporting mission-critical equipment, the HEMTT and the PLS will continue to be an integral part of the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserve heavy vehicle fleets for years to come,” said Pat Williams, the company's vice president and general manager of U.S. Army and Marine Corps programs. “As the military pivots its focus to near-peer adversaries, they can be confident that the [family of heavy tactical vehicles] fleet will continue to serve as a key enabler for combat missions.” Oshkosh has already recapitalized more than 13,700 HEMTTs and 3,400 PLS for the U.S. military since 1995. The company supplies tactical vehicles across the services, including heavy, medium and light. Oshkosh has long held lucrative contracts to supply the services and foreign partners with medium tactical vehicles; it had won a contract to provide a new variant of the vehicle but has yet to begin delivering to the Army. Navistar Defense recently sued the Army over its continued purchase of Oshkosh's family of tactical vehicles without competition, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the service and Oshkosh. Oshkosh also provides the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle to the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force. The vehicle reached full operational capability last year after overcoming some design issues. The future is unclear for the Oshkosh-manufactured JLTV as the Army looks to compete for future lots of the vehicle, according to the service's fiscal 2021 five-year budget plan. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/03/31/oshkosh-wins-contract-to-modernize-armys-heavy-tactical-vehicles/

  • Despite progress, industry faces ‘very tough roadmap’ to field FCAS by 2040

    10 décembre 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Despite progress, industry faces ‘very tough roadmap’ to field FCAS by 2040

    GA is building a prototype 300-kW missile defense laser for the Pentagon and a 250-kW airborne version with Boeing. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on December 09, 2020 at 3:04 PM WASHINGTON: General Atomics is so confident in a unique technology they say solves the heat and weight problems found in rival laser designs that they're making it the core of two distinctly different projects. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is funding General Atomics and two competitors to build experimental lasers able to blast out some 300 kilowatts of power – enough to burn cruise missiles out of the sky. This project is about scaling up laser power output and testing alternative technologies for the services to pick up for separate follow-on programs. Meanwhile, Boeing and General Atomics are jointly developing a smaller laser weapon – starting at about 100 kilowatts but capable of growing to 250 kW. Unlike OSD's, this 250 kW weapon is being built at the companies' own expense, essentially on spec. (The technical term is IRAD, Independent Research And Development). Like OSD, Boeing and GA are hoping to demonstrate technology that'll be picked up by the services for a wide range of ground- and ship-based applications: The company says they're targeting the Army's Stryker-mounted M-SHORAD and its larger truck-borne IFPC, as well as Navy shipborne models. But for the pilot project, they've set themselves a very specific and demanding technical challenge: make their laser fit aboard an airplane – and make it fire accurately from that plane in flight. (Breaking D readers will remember the Airborne Laser, a huge chemical laser on a modified 747, as well as plans to arm the Next Generation Air Dominance planes with lasers.) Call in the “New York, New York” school of engineering: If you can make your laser work on a plane, you can make it work anywhere. “The idea is, if we can do it for an aircraft, then it truly could be able to go on any ground or sea platform,” said GA's VP for lasers, Michael Perry. “An aircraft...has the largest constraints on size, weight, and power.” Now, that doesn't mean getting lasers to work on ships or Army vehicles is easy. In some ways, surface platforms have a harder time: Their lasers have to penetrate the thickest, most moisture-laden layers of the atmosphere. And, Perry told me, while an aircraft in flight is constantly vibrating, you can account for that with sophisticated beam control software and high-quality aiming mirrors: That tech is tricky to build, but not bulky to install once you've built it. By contrast, a laser installed on a surface platform has to handle sudden, massive jolts as the warship crashes over a wave or the truck drives over a ditch, and that requires shock absorption systems, which are bulky and heavy. (While General Atomics and Boeing haven't said what aircraft they're planning to test the laser aboard, given the fact that Perry thinks extensive shock-absorption will be unnecessary, that suggests it isn't going to be a fighter jet or anything that makes violent high-gee maneuvers. That's in line with Air Force Special Operations Command's longstanding interest in putting a laser cannon aboard their AC-130 turboprop gunship). So GA's major focus in this project seems to be proving how compact their technology can be. Smaller size is a big advantage of the GA approach, Perry said, which they refer to as scalable distributed gain. Fibers, Slabs, & Distributed Gain What is a “distributed gain” laser, anyway? In the Wild West days of Reagan's Star Wars program, the Pentagon looked into lots of ways of powering lasers, from literal nuclear explosions – an idea called Project Excalibur – to massive vats of toxic chemicals, like the ones that filled the converted Boeing 747 that became the Airborne Laser. The real progress, however, has come with so-called solid state lasers: They pump light into a crystalline “gain medium,” which then amplifies the power of that light (hence “gain”), until it's released as a laser beam. But there are two main ways of building a solid-state laser: A slab laser, as its name implies, uses a single big chunk of crystal as the gain medium. This gives you a single coherent beam of laser light. The problem with slab lasers is heat buildup. The bigger you make the slab, the further the distance from its core to the edges, which means it takes longer to disperse waste heat, which can build up and damage the system. (You may recognize this from high school physics as a manifestation of the square-cube law). So slab lasers tend to require cooling systems, which are bulky and heavy. A fiber laser, by contrast, uses lots and lots of fiber-optic cables as gain media. Each individual fiber is very thin, and you can leave space between them, so it's easy for them to disperse waste heat. The problem with fiber lasers is the act of combining the beams. The bigger you make the laser, the more fibers you need – a 250-kW weapon might take 100 fibers, Perry said – and each fiber produces its own, weak laser beam, which you then have to combine into a single, powerful beam. Beam combination systems tend to be expensive and complex, not to mention (surprise!) bulky and heavy. General Atomics' distributed gain laser tries to strike a balance. Instead of a single big slab, you have several smaller slabs, each of them thin enough to disperse heat quickly. But instead of each of these slabs producing its own beam in parallel, which you then have to combine, you connect them in serial. The initial light source goes into the first slab, which magnifies it and shoots it into the second slab, which magnifies it still more. In theory you could have a third slab as well, even a fourth and fifth, though that's not what GA is building here. (They don't have to be lined up end to end, because you can use high-quality mirrors to bounce the light around a corner). “It is a series of slabs,” Perry told me. “The single beam passes through them all, as opposed to being separate lasers.” The advantage of distributed gain for high-power lasers is that you need neither the extensive cooling systems of a slab laser, nor the exquisite beam-combination systems of a fiber laser. “It's pretty compact,” Perry told me. “If you came out to see if you would be surprised at how short it is.” That said, there is a minimum length for a given amount of power output. That's why General Atomics couldn't fit the same 300-kW weapon they're building for OSD onto Boeing's aircraft (again, they're not saying what that aircraft is), which is why that version had to be scaled down to 250 inches. “The problem we have is, the 300-kw architecture is about 18 inches longer then the 250,” Perry said ruefully. “Believe it or not, as painful as it is and as frustrated as I am, I cannot eke out another 18 inches of length... The platform can't even give us another 12 inches.” It may be frustrating for Perry and his team to build two different versions of their lasers, rather than build two identical copies of the same thing – but the exercise could help prove to potential customers just how adaptable the basic design can be. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/12/general-atomics-new-compact-high-powered-lasers/

Toutes les nouvelles