Turkish committee approves Sweden’s ascension to NATO

Sur le même sujet

• 

  20 mars 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Raytheon: Robotized Factory Speeds Up Army LTAMDS Radar

  The company is using extensive automation and a new generation of high-efficiency gallium nitride materials to accelerate development of the Lower-Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor, LTAMDS. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on March 19, 2020 at 7:01 AM WASHINGTON: Last October, the Army gave Raytheon a new kind of contract for a new kind of radar. Originally envisioned as simply an upgrade for the iconic but aging Patriot missile defense system, the Lower-Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor has evolved into a multi-purpose radar that can share data with multiple kinds of command posts and launchers, not just Patriot, over the Army's new IBCS network. Its components use gallium nitride (GaN), instead of the traditional gallium arsenide (GaS), which means less electrical energy wasted as heat and more pouring out of the radar to detect incoming threats at greater distances. The program also takes a new approach to acquisition, using both the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) and Section 804 Mid-Tier Acquisition processes to shortcut around the cumbersome conventional process known as DoD 5000. Even the manufacturing process uses new forms of automation to speed up the process, helping to meet the Army's ambitious timeline. In this interview, sponsored by Raytheon, the company's Integrated Air & Missile Defense director, Bob Kelley, talks to Breaking Defense about what makes LTAMDS different. Q: What's special about the way the Army and Raytheon are developing LTAMDS? A: I think this is a great example of an Other Transaction Authority and Section 804 type of rapid prototyping program. It's very ambitious to go from a sense-off in the spring/early summer timeframe at White Sands Missile Range in 2019, to fielding radars to US Army soldiers in 2022. It is an ambitious schedule, but thus far we are on or ahead of schedule. I think a lot of that has to do just with the level of collaboration and transparency that you get from these types of acquisition programs. The OTA is a rapid prototyping program. This is not a [standard] 5000-series DOD acquisition program. The Army is looking for an urgent material release in fiscal year '22. And so, you back that up, you've got to deliver radars for testing in '21, and you had contract award in October of '19. Within 4 months of contract award, we had the first main array antenna, the one that goes on the front – there are two smaller ones to the rear. The first large front array is complete. Call it a prototype zero. That will be ready to start running contractor tests on this year. Q: What's your manufacturing process like to build these systems? A: We have our own nationally certified GaN Foundry on our site of our manufacturing facility in Andover, Massachusetts. So we're literally manufacturing the GaN chips about a couple hundred yards away from where we turn those into circuit cards, so that we can make GaN radio frequency elements to go onto the front of a radar antenna. So once those GaN chips are made, they come over to the circuit card assembly line, and from that point on there is very little touch labor. What you have is you have people that are supervising machines that are making these chips. It's not that people can't make great circuit cards, but you're going to be far more efficient and you're going to make a lot more. The machines are calibrated that every single card will be identical. Now, you need the humans there to make sure that it's identically right, not identically wrong, because if the first one's wrong they're all going to be wrong. But we take a lot of steps with a lot of quality control and testing to make sure that those are all done properly. Something else that's new this time around is adding some larger robots to our factory. We literally have a robot taking those circuit cards — that were assembled on a circuit card assembly line by machines — and delivering those circuit cards to another robot, and that robot will put them in place and install them on onto the radar. It allows us to have more identicality throughout the entire manufacturing process, but also to manufacturer these products much faster. A Patriot radar is still a very viable radar on the battlefield today, and we have partners that are purchasing them, but there's a lot of human touch labor on there, because some of the designs are a few decades old. This makes it so that we can create and manufacturer a radar in a much shorter period of time — and that's one of the things that is what's allowing us to go quickly here and meet the Army's ambitious timeline. Q: You mentioned Gallium Nitride – why is your ability to make that for LTAMDS so important? A: From our perspective, it's the power efficiency. So our radar takes power in and then it needs some of that power to power all the internal systems inside the radar: There's a whole bunch of signal processors, there's a cooling system — just like your car, there's all these auxiliary things that have to be operating to make the radar work. Then you're left with an amount of power that you are going to try to turn into radio frequency power, to push out and do things that radars do – detect, identify, classify, discriminate. The ranges and altitudes that you can do that at is a function of the efficiency of your RF transmitters and how much power you're putting in. What you'll see with gallium nitride is the efficiency, the output, the power output efficiency is unparalleled by any technology that's out there today. With the same amount of input power, you can see much further, see much higher and see much clearer. That's important when you want to build a ground-based air defense radar that has to be able to be driven around, that you want to be able to deploy on, say, a C-17 aircraft from the United States to some hotspot in the world. Well, that will limit you on the size that your radar can be. What you want to have is the most efficient radar that you can make, so with that size you can get the most performance and capability out of your radar. And we believe that's what we've done. This is not our first gallium nitride radar we've made. But with the improvements we've made to our gallium nitride over the past five to 10 years, we're calling this next-gen GaN technology. The efficiency on this radar far exceeds the efficiency on any other GaN radars that we produce. The main LTAMDS array is roughly the same size as the array on a Patriot, but provides more than twice the performance of the Patriot that's out there today on the battlefield. Q: What's the importance of the side arrays? Patriot didn't have them. A: The battlefield used to be linear – the good guys were on one side, the bad guys were on the other side – so bad things were going to come at you from generally the way you were facing. Well, the battlefield is nonlinear today. Now I can maneuver these missiles to attack from any direction I want. I know what your capability for sensing is; if I want to stay out of that, go all the way around you and come in from the rear, I can do that to you. You can be attacked by tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, electronic attack in the form of jamming, UAVs, fifth gen fighters. And they can bring them all in the same time and space to overwhelm your sensor capability. It's gotten to the point now, with the evolution of the threat and where the threat is going, that there is a requirement to have 360 degree protection. That's why we ended up with three fixed and staring arrays, so that we are always looking in all directions. Q: It's not just about LTAMDS itself – you also have to make this work with Northrop Grumman's Integrated Air & Missile Defense Battle Command System network, IBCS. A: There's a lot of intersections with IBCS as it gets ready to go into its limited user test, coming up in the next couple of months. This is the first US Army radar that is being designed and manufactured to be a native to the IBCS network. With Patriot and Sentinel, there are these adaptation kits that will adapt those radars and those shooters to the IBCS integrated fire control network. Those kits are not required with this radar: It is being designed and optimized specifically to operate in that network. It was actually part of the requirement: You had to demonstrate that you understood how to do that and make it happen. We get the interface document from the United States government and they say, “This is what you have to interface with.” It's that simple. [Editor's note: IBCS is a Northrop Grumman product, not one of Raytheon's, but the US government owns the necessary data rights and can share the interface control documents with other contractors whose products need to plug in. That's actually a novel approach to contracting and central to the military's pursuit of interoperable open architecture.] This interview transcript was edited for clarity and brevity. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/raytheon-robotized-factory-speeds-up-army-ltamds-radar

• 

  22 avril 2020 | International, C4ISR

  COVID-19: Army Futures Command Takes Wargames Online

  While the pandemic's halted field exercises, tabletop wargames can continue long-distance. The catch? Getting classified bandwidth so you can discuss specific military capabilities. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on April 21, 2020 at 7:31 AM WASHINGTON: With Pentagon travel restrictions now extended through June 30th, the Army's in-house futurists can't hold their usual face-to-face brainstorming sessions. So rather than delay their work for months, they're moving seminars and wargames online – but there's a tradeoff. The long-distance collaboration tools available so far aren't secure enough for classified data, which means some scenarios are off-limits. The COVID-19 coronavirus has halted some – but far from all – military training and experimentation. Army Futures Command in particular has had to cancel some high-priority field exercises to try out new tactics and technologies, but a lot of its work is thinking about the future, which you can do long-distance, one of its deputy commanders said in a video town hall last week. “We did have to cancel the Joint Warfighting Assessment [JWA] in Europe,” Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley said, “[but] a lot of the work we do in terms of developing concepts...is moving ahead without significant impact.” Wesley runs one of Army Futures Command's three major subunits, the internal thinktank now known as the Futures & Concepts Center (formerly ARCIC), which brainstorms, wargames, and writes about how conflict will change. Tabletop exercises (TTXs, in Army jargon) can move online. That will include the Futures & Concept Center's annual “capstone exercise” on the Army's concept for future warfare, Multi-Domain Operations, he said. It also included another MDO exercise that had been set to take place in May at the Army War College. Four-Star Orders The May wargame was particularly important because it was the kick-off for a study ordered by the four-star chief of Army Futures Command himself, Gen. John “Mike” Murray, one of Wesley's staff officers told me when I followed up. “We wanted to be able to return to Gen. Murray sooner versus later with initial findings,” Col. Chris Rogers told me, “then continue to experiment throughout the summer and the [fall].” The topic that Murray was so intent on? “It was focused specifically on addressing concerns that Gen. Murray had with calibrated force posture,” Rogers said. In layman's terms, that means what soldiers need to be where, with what equipment, at what time, to handle specific threats. In practice, “calibrated force posture” is a 3-D chess game with a few hundred thousand pieces. You have to figure out what kind of forces need to be forward-deployed on allied territory before a crisis starts, what they should do to deter potential adversaries, what warning you might have of an impending attack, what reinforcements you can send in time, how the adversary can stop those reinforcements, how you can stop the adversary from stopping you, and so on ad infinitum. To start tackling these questions, the plan had been to bring officers and civil servants together from all the Army's “schoolhouses” – the armor and infantry center at Fort Benning, the artillery center at Fort Still, the aviation center at Fort Rucker, and so on – for two weeks at the War College. The scenarios to be examined, focused on a particularly challenging region for military deployments: the vast expanses of the Pacific. Now, this wasn't going to be a wargame in the classic sense, with somber men pushing wooden blocks on big maps or icons battling each other on a big screen. No one can write the rules for a detailed simulation yet because the Army's still brainstorming solutions. Instead, such events are more like highly structured seminars, with teams splitting off to analyze particular aspects of the scenario and reporting back on possible plans, at which point they may get challenged with “well, what if the enemy does this?” But precisely because this wasn't a detailed simulation, the Army didn't need specialized software to run it long-distance – just standard online collaboration tools. (In this case, those tools were provided by DTIC, the Defense Technical Information Center). Rogers described the process as a “guided, threaded discussion.” As he explained it, it sounded a lot like an online discussion board, with moderators posting topics and participants posting replies and replies to replies back and forth. That's actually one of the longest-established applications of the Internet, dating back to the Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) that predate the World Wide Web. Modern equivalents are much more sophisticated: You can post graphics like maps and operational diagrams, for instance, which are definitely useful for a military planner. But the systems available to Rogers & co. in May still had definite limits. Limiting Factor The biggest issue? “It's an unclassified network, so there are certain things that we lose,” Rogers told me, like the ranges of specific current and future weapons. The compromise the wargamers made is they'll restrict this first exercise to what's called the “competition phase.” That means everything that happens before – or hopefully instead of — the outbreak of a shooting war — the “conflict phase.” Not simulating actual battles might sound like a major handicap for military planners. But the Army has slowly and painfully come to realize that, while it's really, really good at planning combat operations (what it calls “kinetics”), it really needs to practice the strategic, political and propaganda maneuvering that goes on outside of combat (“non-kinetics”), because you can win every battle and still lose the war. Indeed, from Russia seizing Crimea without a shot to China quietly annexing large portions of the South China Sea, America's adversaries have proven highly capable of accomplishing military objectives without firing a shot. Now, military power still matters in the competition phase: Over all the shadow-boxing there looms the threat of force. But because the competition phase is about deterring war, not waging it, what matters is not the actual capabilities of your weapons, but what the enemy thinks your weapons can do. That, in turn, means you can brainstorm the competition phase in an unclassified discussion, using publicly available information, without ever getting into the classified details of what your weapons could really do when and if the shooting starts. “That's why we felt very comfortable with [changing] from a classified event to an unclassified event, [for] the first iteration,” Rogers told me. Likewise, instead of using classified scenarios depicting potential future crises, he said, they used real crises from recent history, where there's plenty of unclassified information, and then discussed different ways the US could have approached them. At some point, of course, the discussion will have to move on from the competition phase to conflict – from how you calibrate the posture of your forces to how those forces, once postured in the right place, would actually fight. Rogers & co. help to get into those classified details in the next major wargame, scheduled for August. August is after the Pentagon's travel ban expires – at least, in its current form. But given how unpredictable the pandemic has been so far, another extension is entirely possible, Rogers acknowledges, so he and his team are studying alternatives to a face-to-face event. As Lt. Gen. Wesley put it in his town hall: “The real issue is, how long does this last?” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/covid-19-army-futures-command-takes-wargames-online/

• 

  29 juin 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Leonardo DRS wins Army network installation contract

  Andrew Eversden The Army program executive office responsible for network modernization awarded Leonardo DRS a $206 million contract to provide vehicle installation kits for network systems, the company announced June 25. The indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, awarded by Army PEO Command, Control, Communications-Tactical and Project Manager Mission Command, has a performance period of three years with seven option years. Leonardo DRS will provide “cables, brackets and other associated hardware” to support the installation of the next-generation Mounted Family of Computer Systems II, which includes tablets, processors and ruggedized displays. “These are mission-critical components of the Army's Mission Command capability. We are proud to have been selected for high-volume production and delivery of quality, reliable systems for use in almost every type of tactical platform,” said Bill Guyan, senior vice president and general manager of the Leonardo DRS Land Electronics business unit. In June 2018, Leonardo DRS won an $841 million contract to provide the Army with MFoCS II technology. MFoCS II is the service's combat computing platform. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/06/26/leonardo-drs-wins-army-network-installation-contract/