10 mars 2020 | International, C4ISR

Pentagon Seeks New SatCom Tech For ‘Fully Networked C3’

"Our fully networked C3 [Command, Control, & Communications] will look completely different" from current satellites and terminals, said OSD's Doug Schroeder.

By THERESA HITCHENS

SATELLITE 2020: The Pentagon wants industry ideas on how to craft a “fundamentally new architecture” for command, control and communications (C3) that will allow “any user using any terminal to connect to any other user using any other terminal,” says Doug Schroeder, who oversees the effort under the Office of Research and Engineering (R&E).

This kind of omnipresent, all-service connectivity across land, sea, air, and space is essential for the Pentagon's rapidly evolving of future war, known as Joint-All Domain Operations.

“Our Fully Networked C3 communications will look completely different. We have a new vision. We're crafting it with the help of industry,” he said. “We're relying on very heavily on industry, starting with this Broad Agency Announcement dated March 6,” which asks for companies to submit white papers in short order.

According to Schroeder, the Space Development Agency (SDA) will be the funding authority. Vendors whose short, 10 to 15 page white papers are chosen will be invited at the end of April to a Pitch Day. Winners then will be given three months to develop a proposal; contracts for prototypes will be granted 24 months later.

Speaking to a relatively sparse audience here at the annual commercial satellite industry conference, Satellite 2020 — which is underway despite the threat of the COVID-19 Coronavirus — Schroeder stressed: “We are going to take our new direction from you.”

The new strategy, called Fully Networked C3 (FNC3), is being spearheaded by R&E director Mike Griffin and his assistant director for FNC3, Michael Zatman. According to the BAA, the first issued under the effort, the new strategy is being designed to “enable the DoD to reliably communicate with all its tactical and strategic assets.” C3 is one of Griffin's Top Ten areas of technology innovation for which DoD is developing an agency-wide development strategy.

Specifically, DoD now is looking for “Beyond-Line-Of-Site (BLOS) communications systems for airborne, surface, and subsurface systems that is [sic] compatible with both FNC3 enabled systems and legacy systems,” the BAA states.

The BAA calls for White Papers to be submitted by March 30 for three different types of BLOS technologies:

1. Protected Radio Frequency (RF) BLOS Communications.
2. Multi-User/Multi-Point High-Data-Rate Laser Communications.
3. Communications with submerged assets.

R&E intends to “develop, prototype, and demonstrate each innovative communications capability with the goal of transitioning the technologies into programs of record,” the BAA said. To ensure speedy results, DoD will use Other Transaction Authority (OTA) for prototyping (found under 10 U.S. Code § 2371b.)

Much of the detail about the effort is contained in classified annexes.

What we do know: Beyond-Line-Of-Sight communications relayed through satellites generally require equipping platforms — such as aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles — with high-throughput voice and data links, capabilities all of the services have expressed interest in. In particular, after years of little progress, Griffin has reinvigorated DoD interest in optical communications via laser links, in large part due to fears about Russian and Chinese RF jamming. Commercial industry has been rushing to develop optical links to enable satellite-to-satellite data transmission, and the Space Development Agency is interested in that capability for its so-called transport layer of small satellites in Low Earth Orbit.

Radio-frequency communications with submarines when underwater are generally limited to terse text messages, transmitted at very low frequencies (three to 30 kilohertz) and extremely low frequencies (three to 300 hertz) and requiring very large antennas to receie them. Research work is ongoing at MIT on how to link traditional underwater sonar to airborne RF receivers, a methodology called Translational Acoustic-RF) communication. Research also is ongoing, including at MIT's Lincoln Lab, on using narrow-beam lasers to allow one underwater vehicle to communicate with another.

BLOS communications can also be accomplished without using satellites. Alternative method include tropospheric scatter using microwave radiation, high frequency (HF) wireless, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) relays, and passive reflector systems.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/pentagon-seeks-new-satcom-tech-for-fully-networked-c3

Sur le même sujet

  • An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism

    15 janvier 2019 | International, Naval

    An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism

    By: Tom Kington , Andrew Chuter , and Sebastian Sprenger ROME, LONDON and COLOGNE, Germany — The U.S. and European shipbuilding industries lead largely separate lives against the backdrop of a massive Asian naval buildup, but some trans-Atlantic projects still manage to thrive. The building of warships has always been a prime example of nations nurturing a highly specialized industry deemed so crucial that outside economic forces cannot be allowed to intervene. And while some European nations have begun to think about pooling shipbuilding forces on the continent, analysts and industry executives in Europe say the wall separating the U.S. and European naval markets remains high. Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said. “The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven't given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added. At the same time, the U.S. market has been relatively closed off to European shipbuilders, though there is a chance that could change somewhat with the Navy's Future Frigate program. “It's a bit like two different planets,” said Sebastian Bruns, head of the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University in northern Germany. The reflex to buy only American-made warships is especially strong in the current political climate, he added. The sheer number of ships needed on each side of the Atlantic creates a natural differentiator, according to Bruns, who spent time working U.S. naval policy as a House staffer on Capitol Hill. He said the Navy tends to prefer no-frills designs made for maximum war-fighting power in a great powers competition, while Europeans have taken to building vessels with a kind of peace-maintenance role in mind, affording a greater level of automation and comfort for the crew, for example. One British naval executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the lack of trans-Atlantic industrial touch points wasn't limited to market access, arguing that cost-effectiveness was also an issue. “Despite the problems we have and the programs that don't go exactly according to plan ton for ton and capability for capability, the U.K. manages to build and deliver surface ships at a much lower cost than the United States,” he said. “The U.S. shipyards know they would have difficulty competing in the region, particularly if you are talking about yards that have built a good track record. Naval Group, Fincantieri, Damen Shipyards, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems — these are yards that have been competitive and build with export experience behind them. They are already ahead of the game and I do think it comes back to the cost base, I think it is difficult for the United States to build as cost-effectively as the Europeans,” the executive argued. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/14/an-ocean-apart-few-naval-vendors-manage-to-pierce-us-and-european-protectionism

  • Philadelphia shipyard to build new dual-use merchant mariner training ships

    16 avril 2020 | International, Naval

    Philadelphia shipyard to build new dual-use merchant mariner training ships

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — A struggling Philadelphia shipyard got a new lease on life April 8 with the announcement that it had been selected to build up to five training ships for the Maritime Administration destined for use by civilian mariners attending state maritime academies. The contract, issued by Alaska-based company TOTE Services, tapped Philly Shipyard to build the first two national security multimission vessels, or NSMV, for a total of $630 million, according to the trade publication Marine Log. The ships, which will feature the latest navigation and bridge technologies, will be able to accommodate up to 600 cadets but will also be available for use by the federal government for disaster relief operations. The ships come with a roll-on/roll-off ramp and a crane that can be used for moving equipment and containers. The NSMVs will be 525 feet long and about 90 feet wide, or just a little smaller than a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, according to a Maritime Administration fact sheet. MARAD Administrator Mark Buzby said the contract is a win for American shipbuilding jobs. “Investing in maritime education creates more American jobs,” Buzby, a former Navy flag officer, said in a statement. "By the selection of Philly Shipyard, Inc., as the construction shipyard for the NSMV, this effort is not only bolstering the U.S. Merchant Marine, but the U.S. economy and vital transportation infrastructure as well.” Philly Shipyard primarily makes Jones Act ships, or vessels that exist only because the Jones Act mandates that goods shipped between U.S. ports must be sent on U.S.-flagged ships built and crewed by Americans. The rule is designed to preserve the domestic shipbuilding industry as a national security asset. Without it there would essentially be no domestic commercial shipbuilding industry. “Philly Shipyard only received one order per year during the last two years and was in danger of closing during 2020 unless it received additional work,” said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who recently led a study of the domestic shipbuilding industry. “Philly is important not just because it is a significant employer in the Philadelphia area, but also because it is one of the shipyards the government depends on to build smaller auxiliary and non-combatant ships such as Coast Guard cutters, NOAA research ships, and Navy unmanned surface vessels, survey ships, and towing and salvage vessels.” The vessels could also prove useful in the Navy's quest to identify a flexible hull that can meet a number of missions as it seeks to replace its aging logistics fleet, said Sal Mercogliano, a maritime historian at Campbell University. “I think those vessels serve as a potential hull form for maybe a hospital ship, maybe a command ship, an aviation logistics ship, a sub tender: There's potential there,” Mercogliano said. The Navy planned to develop and field two variants of a Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-Mission Platform, one for sealift purposes and one for other auxiliary ship missions such as submarine tending, hospital ships, and command-and-control platforms. But late last year, the White House blanched at a cost estimate of upward of $1.3 billion for the submarine tender variant of the CHAMP platform, planned for acquisition in 2024. For moving lots of tanks and howitzers across long distances, the NSMV isn't well-suited. But for many of the other missions the Navy needs to recapitalize, including its hospital ships, it could prove useful. “I don't think they'd be good for a roll-on/roll-off — it's not designed for a large mission bay,” Mercogliano said. “But I think for the hospital ship, a command ship, there's a lot of utility there.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/04/14/philadelphia-shipyard-tapped-to-build-new-merchant-marine-training-ships

  • Are OTAs the Thing of the Future?

    2 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

    Are OTAs the Thing of the Future?

    As it looks to get new technologies developed and into the field as quickly as possible, the Department of Defense has been making greater use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA), a quick-strike contracting mechanism that has gone in and out of fashion since the 1950s, but is now seeing a resurgence. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for example, recently awarded a $49 million OTA to Enterprise Services, teaming with four other companies, for DISA's National Background Investigation Services (NBIS), a shared service intended to combine a number of separate systems to speed up process investigations. The Navy also took the OTA route in awarding Advanced Technology International a $100 million deal to manage work on the Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Command's Information Warfare Research Project. The Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental (DIUx), created in 2015 to foster innovation in partnership with industry, has made extensive use of OTAs, telling Congress earlier this year it had awarded 61 other transaction agreements worth $145 million, with the agreements reached within an average of 78 days. What both projects have in common are that they involve prototyping new technologies and involve companies that don't usually work as DoD contractors. They also aim for rapid development and deployment. The Navy contract “will accelerate acquisition and bring non-traditional sources, research and development labs, and industry together to provide new, innovative information warfare solutions,” said Rear Adm. C.D. Becker, commander of SPAWAR Systems Command. Full article: https://www.meritalk.com/articles/are-otas-the-thing-of-the-future/

Toutes les nouvelles