Russia to start from scratch on some submarine parts amid sanctions

Sur le même sujet

• 

  27 septembre 2022 | International, Aérospatial

  How NASA launches - and delays - hurt US defense innovation

  By outsourcing the rocket's R&D activities across more than 20 states, SLS has garnered much political support from many members of Congress.

• 

  16 octobre 2018 | International, Terrestre

  General Dynamics Griffin Takes Lead To Replace M2 Bradley

  By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. BAE System's CV90 Mark IV is the latest upgrade of a 25-year-old vehicle widely used in Europe; the Rheinmetall-Raytheon Lynx is an all-new design, although individual components have a good track record; but the General Dynamics Griffin III is in the middle, combining a new gun and new electronics with the time-tested chassis from the European ASCOD family. AUSA: General Dynamics looks like the early favorite to replace the Army's 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley troop carrier. That's my personal assessment after talking at length to officers and contractors at last week's Association of the US Army conference, where months of uncertainty finally gave way to some real clarity about both what the Army wants and what industry can offer. In brief, GD's Griffin III demonstrator seems to hit the sweet spot between innovative and proven technologies that the Army wants to start fielding a Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as soon as 2026. Of the three vehicles on display at AUSA, BAE System's CV90 Mark IV is the latest upgrade of a 25-year-old vehicle widely used in Europe; the Rheinmetall-Raytheon Lynx is an all-new design, although individual components have a good track record; but the General Dynamics Griffin III is in the middle, combining a new gun and new electronics with the time-tested chassis from the European ASCOD family. The competitors do have a lot in common. All offer tracked vehicles with diesel engines — even BAE, which once touted its hybrid-electric drives as a key selling point. All three boast open-architecture electronics to ease future upgrades, an integrated Active Protection System to shoot down incoming anti-tank warheads, modular armor that can be layered on or stripped down depending on the mission, and a turret capable of mounting a 50 mm gun, the Army's preferred caliber. Only the Griffin actually has a 50mm installed right now, however. The others currently have 35mm cannon. It's also the only vehicle that can point its gun almost straight up, at an 85 degree angle, to hit rooftop targets in urban combat, something the Army has worried about extensively. Details like this suggest that General Dynamics has been listening more closely to the Army than its competitors. In fact, even where the Griffin III underperforms its competitors, most notably by carrying fewer infantry, it does so in areas where the Army is willing to make tradeoffs. The End of the Beginning Now, it's still early in the NGCV race. While we only saw three contenders on the floor at AUSA, it's still entirely possible a fourth player could jump in. My money's on the team of SAIC and Singapore-based STK, which is already offering a modified Singaporean army vehicle for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light tank. The other MPF competitors are BAE, with an update of the Armored Gun Systemcancelled in 1996, and GD, offering a version of the Griffin. By November, the Army will award two of the three companies contracts to build prototypes. If either GD or the SAIC-ST team wins, they'll have at least a slight advantage for NGCV, since buying related vehicles for both roles will simplify training, maintenance, and supply. (BAE's AGS is totally unrelated to its CV90, so an MPF win wouldn't help it on NGCV). By contrast to MPF, the competition for NGCV is only at the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. The Army's still refining its requirements, in part based on discussions with industry at AUSA. What's the timeline? Col. James Schirmer, the program manager, said at the conference that “we are within weeks of having that requirement finalized.” Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, the Army's director of armored vehicle modernization, said a formal Request For Proposal (RFP) based on those requirements will come out no later than January. So there'll be time for the competitors to revise their NGCV designs before submitting them. Even after that, more than one company will get a contract to build prototypes for Army testing. What's the objective that drives both this pace and the technological tradeoffs the Army is willing to make? Fielding the first operational unit in 2026 — nine years earlier than the original plan — to help deter Russian aggression. Deadline 2026 “All options are on the table, but the schedule will be the schedule,” Brig. Gen. Coffman told reporters at AUSA. “We would like to field this vehicle by 2026.” “If someone could develop a clean sheet design that could meet that timeline,” he said, “it'd be great, but I don't know that's doable.” (By contrast, the potential replacement for the M1 Abrams tank is coming later, so the service is looking for radical innovation). Schirmer offered more specifics. “We have a pretty challenging test schedule... very similar to MPF, (so) we really can't afford a clean sheet design,” he said. The more mature the component technologies, the better, he said, but what's best is that those individual components have been proven as an integrated system. Specifically, Schirmer said, “for the Bradley replacement, we are going to be buying vehicles that are based on a mature architecture — powertrain, track, suspension — that's already in service somewhere in the world.” While these remarks leave the door open for the Lynx, or at least ajar, they're not particularly encouraging. By contrast, the CV90 series entered service with Sweden in 1993, with variants now serving in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Holland, Norway, and Switzerland. The Griffin III is the latest member of the ASCOD family — the Spanish Pizzaro, Austrian Ulan, and British Ajax — which debuted in Spain in 2002. While the Army wants a proven hull, however, Schirmer says there is one area where technology is advancing fast enough for it be worth taking some risk: lethality, i.e. the gun and sensors. In particular, while the Bradley has a 25mm chaingun, the Army really wants NGCV to have a 50mm cannon — firing shells about four times as big — that's now in development at the service's Ammunition Research, Development, & Engineering Center (ARDEC). That gun, the XM913, is currently integrated on just one competitor, the Griffin, although both the Lynx and CV90 turrets could accommodate it. All three vehicles, like the Bradley, also have room in the turret to mount anti-tank missiles of various types. The Griffin on the show floor also mounts a launcher for AeroVironment Shrike mini-drones, while the Lynx will have the option to launch Raytheon's Coyote: Both mini-drones can be configured either with sensors to scout or with warheads to destroy. Even on weaponry, however, the Army is willing to make compromises to speed fielding, just as it introduced the original M1 Abrams with a 105 mm gun but with room to upgrade to the desired 120mm when it was ready a few years later. For NGCV, Schirmer said, they want the vehicle to have the 50mm gun eventually but “may settle on the 30 in the near term, just to meet schedule.” Armor & Passengers Besides gun caliber, the other easily measured aspect of an armored vehicle is its weight, which is very much a two-edged sword. There's been no breakthrough in armor materials since the 1980s and none on the horizon, so the only way to get better armor is to make it thicker. So a heavier vehicle is probably better protected, but it also burns more fuel, wears out more spare parts, and has more trouble getting places: Bridges and transport aircraft in particular can only take so much weight. Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/general-dynamics-griffin-takes-lead-to-replace-m2-bradley

• 

  22 mai 2019 | International, Terrestre

  US Army’s jumping to the next level in virtual training

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has been building a virtual world in which to train soldiers for war, and it's expected to award contracts in June for reconfigurable virtual air and ground trainers and for a common synthetic environment that includes complex and real-life terrain. Maj. Gen. Maria Gervais, who leads the Synthetic Training Environment Cross-Functional Team, which is part of Army Futures Command, told reporters during a recent media roundtable that she's “encouraged” to see what her team accomplished since it formed roughly 18 months ago. While the service, at a time, led the charge when it came to developing virtual environments, it has clung to relics of the '80s and '90s — stove-piped training systems lacking in realism. As the Army shifts its focus to fighting in a multidomain environment, the service wants a new system that enables collective training across air, ground, sea, cyber and space with greater fidelity that can be used not only as a trainer but also as a mission-planning tool. Before the synthetic training environment, or STE, was prioritized through the establishment of Army Futures Command, it wasn't going to be ready until 2030, but Gervais shrunk that timeline through new approaches in development and acquisition by involving industry and soldiers in a collaborative and agile manner. What is the STE? Over the last 18 months, the components of the STE have taken shape and will consist of One World Terrain — which compiles realistic and accurate virtual maps of territory — training simulation software, a training management tool and virtual collective trainers. All of this will make up the soldier/squad virtual trainer and the reconfigurable virtual collective trainer. The idea is to be able to click on any place on a virtual globe and go there. Soldiers can then train virtually in an exact environment in which they can expect to operate in reality. Just a few years ago, building One World Terrain was painstaking, tedious and expensive, but through new technology applications, what used to take nine months to build can now take eight hours. The training simulation software will support training simultaneously across many locations and training platforms. The training management tool allows users to build training scenarios through simulation databases. The virtual trainers are being designed for dismounted, air and ground formations to train from a squad level through battalion, and ultimately at higher echelons. The trainer for the soldier and squad will support individual and collective task at the smallest formation. The reconfigurable virtual collective trainers, or RVCT, will represent Army and Marine Corps air and ground systems for training at the unit level and will be used for mission rehearsals at every echelon. Ready player one The Army plans to award contracts next month to build both an RVCT for aircraft and an RVCT for ground vehicles that are reconfigurable based on changes to platform inventories. The STE conducted an initial user assessment of what had been developed in March 2018, Gervais said. Since then, the Army has conducted more than 20 “touch points” with industry partners, which led to a user assessment in Orlando, Florida — where the STE cross-functional team is based — of One World Terrain, the training management tool as well as the training simulation software. Meanwhile, Gervais said, the team is in the middle of a user assessment of an RVCT—Air prototype at Fort Carson, Colorado, which began in April and is supported by soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division. The service completed its assessment of a ground simulation platform that went to Fort Riley, Kansas. Crew members for Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker combat vehicles of the 1st Infantry Division supported that effort. One World Terrain is already in use and under evaluation by a Marine battalion as well as three divisions in the Army and Naval Special Warfare Command. It's also used at the National Training Center and by the 3rd and 7th special forces groups. All of the users are providing feedback, according to Gervais. A contract was awarded in September 2018 to build the squad advanced marksmanship trainer, which is a product of the Close Combat Lethality Task Force initiative to improve soldier lethality and survivability, and the capability is already fielded to the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York. The new trainer takes what was a tethered system and — while it still uses projectors and screens — allows users to move around a base with more flexibility, which is more operationally realistic. Ultimately, the projectors and screens could be replaced by a headset, which is in keeping with the service's requirement to bring trainers to an operational unit in the field or at home station. This means the system must be easy to set up and transport. “We will continue to field that out to the Army the rest of this [fiscal year],” Gervais said. Taking it to the next level The Army plans to use the other transaction authority, or OTA, contracting mechanism to award contracts next month to move quicker and more agile than the standard and often lengthy acquisition process. The service previously used OTAs for STE development. “What the existing OTAs have done for us is they have actually allowed us to get a quick look from industry on where they were with the capabilities,” Col. Marcus Varnadore, the project manager for the STE CFT, said during the media roundtable. “It was very important for us right up front to identify where industry really was with respect to the technology, which allowed us to then make some decisions about what path to go forward with, and it also allowed us, with that first OTA, to kind of get an idea of how we needed to structure our follow-on OTAs,” he added. With the upcoming OTA contract awards, “we are kind of taking that and moving it to the next level using OTAs to bridge our gap here to get to the [initial operational capability] ... before we transition ultimately into a production [full-operational capability] environment,” said Brian Serra, the branch chief of Army Contracting Command—Orlando. “We are using the flexibility of OTAs,” he added, “to adjust as we go so we are not married to a 100-page specification.” That translates to the CFT taking a two-year process and shrinking it to six months max. The incremental process has also allowed the STE CFT to track industry's progress in this arena. Gervais noted that in some cases, companies might have overstated a specific technology's capabilities, and in turn the serve may need to bolster funding for internal science and technology efforts to improve that specific tech. Alternatively, the Army might notice it's been developing technology that is already well-developed in the commercial world. “I'm very confident and comfortable that our efforts to date are going to keep us on track to meet an initial operational capability of fourth-quarter FY21,” Gervais said. To reach initial operational capability, Gervais expects to field a battalion set of the RVCT—Air and RVCT—Ground — running on the common synthetic environment made up of One World Terrain, the training management tools and the training simulation software — to at least four installations. Over the next two years following initial operational capability, the Army will expand that fielding to include all installations where the capability is required in order to reach full operational capability by FY23. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/05/17/us-armys-jumping-to-next-level-in-virtual-training-world/