16 juillet 2019 | International, Terrestre
By Matthew Cox
Next year, the Army plans to have soldiers fire at targets using remote-controlled robotic vehicles as part of a three-phase effort to learn how autonomous combat vehicles can make small units more effective on the battlefield.
During the operational test scheduled for next March at Fort Carson, Colorado, soldiers will operate from specially modified Bradley fighting vehicles known as Mission Enabler Technologies-Demonstrators, or MET-Ds, according to a recent Army news release.The tricked-out vehicles feature remote turrets for the 25mm main gun, 360-degree situational awareness cameras and enhanced crew stations with touch screens.
The first phase of testing will include two MET-Ds and four robotic combat vehicles on M113 armored personnel carrier surrogate platforms. Each MET-D will have a driver and gunner, as well as four soldiers in its rear, who will conduct platoon-level maneuvers with two surrogate vehicles that fire 7.62mm machine guns, according to the release.
"We've never had soldiers operate MET-Ds before," said David Centeno Jr., chief of the Emerging Capabilities Office at the Combat Capabilities Development Command's Ground Vehicle Systems Center. "We're asking them to utilize the vehicles in a way that's never been done before."
One goal for the autonomous vehicles is to learn how to penetrate an adversary's anti-access/aerial denial capabilities without putting soldiers in danger.
"You're exposing forces to enemy fire, whether that be artillery, direct fire," Centeno said. "So, we have to find ways to penetrate that bubble, attrit their systems and allow for freedom of air and ground maneuver. These platforms buy us some of that, by giving us standoff."
In late fiscal 2021, phase two of the effort will have soldiers conduct experiments at the company level with six MET-Ds and the same M113 surrogates, as well as four light and four medium surrogate robotic combat vehicles (RCVs) provided by industry, the release states.
"The intent of this is to see how an RCV light integrates into a light infantry formation and performs reconnaissance and security tasks, as well as supports dismounted infantry operations," Maj. Cory Wallace, robotic combat vehicle-lead for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team, said in the release.
Phase three is scheduled for fiscal 2023 and will add four medium and four heavy purpose-built RCVs to the mix, the release states.
"This is not how we're used to fighting," Centeno said. "We're asking a lot. We're putting a lot of sensors, putting a lot of data in the hands of soldiers. We want to see how that impacts them. We want to see how it degrades or increases their performance."
The family of RCVs includes three variants. Army officials envision the light version to be transportable by rotary wing. The medium variant would be able to fit onto a C-130 Hercules aircraft, and the heavy variant would fit onto a C-17 Globemaster aircraft, according to the release.
Critics of the effort say it sounds very similar to the Army's failed Future Combat Systems (FCS), an ambitious effort to design a new fleet of lightweight manned and unmanned combat vehicles and other platforms designed to dominate future battlefields.
Army officials have argued that the technology FCS depended on did not exist. The service spent billions on FCS, only to see it fail when then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates killed the 27-ton Manned Ground Vehicles portion of FCS in the 2010 budget while criticizing the advanced design as ill-suited to survive current battlefield threats.
Army officials believe that the service's new Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle could influence the development of the heavy RCV, the release states.
In December, the Army awarded MPF contracts to two firms to build 12 prototypes each and begin delivering them to the service in early 2020. The goal is to down-select to a winner by fiscal 2022 and begin fielding the first of 504 of these lightweight tanks sometime in fiscal 2025, officials say.
The heavy RCV is being designed to provide the enemy-armor killing power of an MPF with even less armor since it doesn't have to protect soldiers, the release states
"An RCV reduces risk," Wallace said. "It does so by expanding the geometry of the battlefield so that, before the threat makes contact with the first human element, it has to make contact with the robots. That, in turn, gives commanders additional space and time to make decisions."
16 novembre 2023 | International, Terrestre
Italy's Leonardo is trimming its stake in U.S. unit DRS as new CEO Roberto Cingolani looks to expand the state-controlled group with major roles in European defence projects.
9 décembre 2019 | International, Autre défense
President Donald Trump appears to be getting his wish that U.S. allies pay more for their own defense, which begs the question: Is the victory worth the cost? Pushing allies to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense is not a new concept. Trump's predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama both argued for greater burden sharing, and Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine's Crimea region had allies starting to move toward that benchmark. Arguably, Trump's “America First” drumbeat is getting NATO allies to pay a bigger share of the cost of their defense three decades after the end of the Cold War. Military spending by European NATO nations and Canada has risen 4.6% this year, and the majority of allies have plans to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024, according to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. Meanwhile, the U.S. is on a path to dial back its contribution from 22% of NATO's total funding to 16%. “This is a direct result of President Trump making clear our expectations that these Europeans would step up to help secure their own people,” says U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Unfortunately, Trump has not stopped there, openly expressing disdain for an organization established to guard against the kind of territorial expansion undertaken by the former Soviet Union. He has hurled sophomoric barbs at steadfast allies such as the UK, Germany and Canada, while refusing to criticize Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the architect of both the Crimea invasion and Moscow's campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. For the first phase of the Trump presidency, his cabinet tried to temper those go-it-alone impulses. Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis sought to reassure allies of U.S. support for their security. But more recent White House appointees have been less willing to cross their boss. Even more damaging was Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw most U.S. forces from Syria, disgracefully abandoning America's Kurdish allies to the benefit of Turkey, Russia and Iran and leaving Europe more exposed to attacks from Islamic extremists. “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO,” French President Emmanuel Macron told The Economist. Trump sees NATO in a transactional way, “as a project in which the United States acts as a sort of geopolitical umbrella, but the trade-off is that there has to be commercial exclusivity,” he added. “It's an arrangement for buying American.” While Macron is calling for a reconsideration of what NATO means in light of reduced American commitment, European nations are not waiting. They are building up their own defense industrial base. In 2017, the EU created the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative, which is pursuing research toward new missiles, aircraft, missile defense and electronic attack capabilities. U.S. efforts to have its companies included in the work have so far been brushed off. Trump's hardball approach also is being applied to key allies in Asia that have long served as a bulwark against a rising China. The U.S. alliance with South Korea is now reviewed annually, instead of every four years. And after signing a deal in February that calls for South Korea to pay nearly $1 billion to maintain the U.S. military presence there, Washington is now demanding that Seoul pay $4.7 billion annually. Before an agreement was reached, the U.S. walked out of the talks. The Trump administration also is looking for more cash from Japan, calling for more than triple Tokyo's $1.7 billion contribution toward hosting U.S. troops in its country. These requests are straining longstanding alliances. South Korea is edging closer to China, while Japan, which has a strong industrial base, might partner with the UK on its Tempest fighter program. To be sure, U.S. defense exports remain near an all-time high. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced $55.4 billion in potential Foreign Military Sales in fiscal 2019, about the same as the prior year. But there are indications that Trump's pay-up-now methods may lead to an erosion in future sales. Asking allies to contribute more for their own defense certainly has merit, but the wider risks to U.S. global interests cannot be ignored. Can 70-year-old alliances survive if the leading partner vocally questions their value? And if the alliances crack, what would that mean for the U.S. military industrial base? “The more our alliances fray,” says Eric Edelman, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense, “the less interest people have in buying U.S. defense goods and services.” https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-pressuring-allies-pay-more-defense-worth-cost
26 juillet 2021 | International, Aérospatial
Ursa Major is developing a family of rocket engines for commercial and defense customers.