UK sets out vision for ‘Intelligent Warship’ technologies

Sur le même sujet

• 

  15 janvier 2021 | International, Aérospatial

  MBDA : le missile SPEAR passe en production

  Le Royaume-Uni notifie le missilier MBDA d'un contrat de 550 M£ pour lancer la production du mini-missile de croisière Spear 3 qui a déjà bénéficié de 561 M£ en contrats d'évaluation et de développement. 550 M£ de plus pour MBDA Le ministère britannique de la Défense a notifié le missilier MBDA un contrat d'un montant de 550 M£ pour la mise en production du mini-missile de croisière SPEAR en développement depuis 2010. Destiné à équiper les Airbus Typhoon et les Lockheed Martin F-35B de la Royal Air Force et de la Fleet Air Arm, ce missile, qui est désigné "SPEAR 3", est le premier de sa catégorie à être équipé de moyens de connectivité pour une utilisation en réseau, préfigurant les effecteurs déportés et utilisables en essaims. MBDA ne précise pas si les missiles SPEAR 3 destinés à la Royal Air Force comprendront une version dotée d'une charge de guerre électronique pour brouiller les moyens de détection ennemis. On peut supposer que "oui" puisque cela était une demande de la Royal Air Force. Déjà 561 M£ versés pour le missile SPEAR 3 Ce nouveau contrat d'un montant de 550 M£ qui lance la production du missile MBDA Spear s'ajoute à ceux déjà passés les années 2010 et 2016. En mai 2016, le ministère de la défense britannique avait annoncé avoir accordé un contrat d'une valeur de 411M£ à MBDA pour poursuivre le développement du missile Spear 3. Ce contrat faisait suite à un premier engagement de 150M£ accordé en 2010 pour lancer la phase d'évaluation du système. Essais sur avion de combat Airbus Typhoon Les essais de tir depuis l'avion de combat Airbus Typhoon avaient commencé quelques mois plus tôt tandis que les travaux d'intégration sur l'avion de combat Lockheed Martin F-35B avaient officiellement commencé trois ans plus tard, parallèlement aux travaux d'intégration du missile Meteor de MBDA sur le même avion. https://www.air-cosmos.com/article/mbda-le-missile-spear-passe-en-production-24077

• 

  16 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

  EXCLUSIVE DoD Seeks $2.9B For Hypersonics In 2021

  While Army and Navy spending nearly double, Air Force and independent agency spending drops almost 40 percent. By THERESA HITCHENS and SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on April 14, 2020 at 4:07 PM Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data WASHINGTON: The Pentagon is asking Congress for $2.865 billion for hypersonic weapons in 2021, up not quite 14 percent from a 2020 total of $2.508 billion, according to DoD budget documents obtained by Breaking Defense. Army and Navy hypersonics spending would nearly double in 2021. Each increases by 95 percent. But that's offset by a 40 percent reduction in spending by independent defense agencies like DARPA, which are handing off much of the work to the services as programs move from basic research to prototyping, and a 35 percent cut in the Air Force, which cancelled one of its two major hypersonics programs. Hypersonic weapons fall into two main categories. The more conservative approach — relatively speaking, since these are all bleeding-edge weapons — is known as boost-glide, because it uses a conventional rocket booster to accelerate the weapon to hypersonic speed, after which the glide body containing the warhead detaches from the booster and coasts, skipping along the upper limits of the atmosphere like a stone across a pond. The Navy and Army programs are both boost-glide weapons, and the two services are using a common booster rocket, built by the Navy, and a Common Glide Body, built by the Army and lead contractor Dynetics. The Navy also plans to customize the weapon to launch from submarines, while the Army version will fire from trucks, a much simpler engineering challenge. Notional flight paths of hypersonic boost-glide missiles, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. (CSBA graphic) The Air Force had two boost-glide programs. HCSW (pronounced hacksaw), the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, which would have used a modified version of Army-built Common Glide Body. But the Air Force decided to cancel HCSW and focus its efforts on the more compact ARRW (arrow), the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon. (Both HCSW and ARRW are Lockheed Martin programs). Finally, DARPA is working on an alternative to boost-glide: air-breathing hypersonic cruise missiles that spend their entire flight in the atmosphere, with their engines providing continuous thrust. That allows the engine to take in oxygen from the air as it flies, rather carrying bulky oxygen tanks — as a boost-glide weapon's rocket boosters do. But flying through the atmosphere also creates friction, heating up an air-breathing hypersonic weapon in ways a boost-glide design, which spends most of its time in a near-vacuum, doesn't have to worry about. Since the air-breathing technology is more ambitious, it remains a DARPA effort for now, with two contracts: Northrup Grumman and Raytheon are working on the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapons Concept (HAWC) and Lockheed Martin on the Hypersonic Strike Weapon air-breathing (HSW-ab). While these programs will probably transition to the Air Force in the near future, they don't yet have their own budget lines in the documents we obtained; they're almost certainly folded into the figure for independent defense agencies. Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data The documents summed up a portfolio of programs the Pentagon now refers to as “missile defense and defeat,” a euphemism which combines offensive and defensive programs. As Breaking D readers know, DoD has taken to lumping long-range strike efforts known as left-of-launch into its budget reporting on missile defense, with a total of $3.26 billion included for such activities in the 2021 request. Spending on hypersonic weapons is listed as a subcategory of “nontraditional” missile defense funding, defined as: funding for missile defeat efforts outside of the above missile defense efforts. This captures ‘left-of launch' efforts that defeat missiles before they take flight via high-speed strike (e.g. Conventional Prompt Strike) or cyber-attack operations. We combed through the document to extract the offensive hypersonics programs from traditional missile defense, directed energy (lasers), cyber warfare, and other means of neutralizing enemy missile salvos. The document broke down 2020 funding and 2021 requests for Army, Navy, Air Force and defense-wide, both for foundational science, technology, test and evaluation (STTE) as well as for each individual service's programs to develop hypersonic missiles. Meanwhile, the Missile Defense Agency and the Space Development Agency are working on a space-based sensor to detect adversary hypersonic and cruise missiles, under the Hypersonic & Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor (HBTSS) Prototyping program. The Navy is the big spender in 2021, with the bulk of the funds slated for the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), a submarine-launched boost-glide weapon set to enter service in 2025. Its total hypersonic budget in 2020 is set at $526 million, but jumping to just over $1 billion in the 2021 request. (DoD agencies spent $31 million in 2020 wrapping up their portion of CPS, but the whole program will be in the Navy budget as of 2021). The Air Force's 2020 budget includes $848 million, the budget documents show, but that drops in the 2021 request to $554 million due to the cancellation of HCSW. The Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) is funded at $286 million in 2020 and the service is asking for $382 million in 2021. As for the Army, the documents put 2020 spending at $441 million, and the 2021 request is for $859 million. That increase is driven by a big jump in the budget for the land-based version of the common Army-Navy boost-glide weapon, the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), from $409 million in 2020 to $801 million in 2021. (This LRHW line item also includes some work on the cancelled Mobile Intermediate Range Missile. DoD never said publicly what MIRM would be, or even whether it would be a hypersonic missile or a conventional ballistic missile, and it appears to have been stillborn). The documents also show the Army spending $19 million on the Operational Fires ground-launched hypersonic missile program in 2020, and asking for another $28 million in 2021. OpFires is a joint program with DARPA. Lockheed Martin scored a $31.9 million contract from DARPA in January to begin Phase 3 Weapon System Integration under the program. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/exclusive-dod-asks-2-9b-for-hypersonics-in-2021

• 

  1 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  The Pentagon has spent 23% of its COVID-19 response funds. Congress is asking why not more.

  By: Joe Gould Updated 5/29/20 with response from the Pentagon. WASHINGTON ― The Pentagon has spent less than a quarter of the $10.6 billion Congress gave it in March to protect military personnel and marshal American industry to procure face masks, ventilators and other products hospitals need in their fight against the coronavirus. Citing the Trump administration's most recent reports to Congress, Democratic senators say the Pentagon has placed on contract 23 percent of the funds it was provided nine weeks ago as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020. It's the latest criticism in a sharp back and forth between congressional Democrats and the Pentagon over the latter's response to the global pandemic. As the nation surpassed 100,000 deaths from COVID-19, nine Senate Democrats wrote to Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Thursday, calling for him to provide Congress with a spending plan for the remaining funds. Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Vice Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., led the letter, which was obtained by Defense News. “We are concerned by the delays in providing this important information, the lack of transparency in the use of emergency funds appropriated to the Department, and troubling signs the funds will instead be spent for other purposes,” the letter read. “Lacking a spend plan, we are not even sure what those purposes may be.” Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., signed the new letter with Durbin, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Patty Murray, D-Wash.; Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Udall, D-N.M.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. Though the coronavirus rescue package included more than $1 billion for National Guard deployments requested by the administration to support state authorities, the Guard didn't need the money because the Federal Emergency Management Agency has since taken responsibility for reimbursing states. “We do not understand why the Department requested these funds ... nor do we know what they will be used for now,” the lawmakers wrote. The Pentagon has thus far obligated $167 million of the $1 billion Congress granted under the Defense Production Act, a Korean War-era law that the president recently invoked, to have industry produce key items such as N95 respirator masks and swabs needed for coronavirus testing, ventilators and other items. “Lacking further information from the Department on its plans for these funds, we are unable to answer simple questions such as whether the U.S. Government is doing everything in its power to address shortfalls in supplies which are not only needed at this moment, but also in preparation for a predicted second wave of coronavirus infections,” the lawmakers wrote. In a statement, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Rath Hoffman said the department “remains committed to legally and responsibly executing these funds on the highest priorities to protect our military and their families and safeguard our national security capabilities. As we have seen, this is an evolving and dynamic situation where priorities and requirements change, which is why it is so important that we remain faithful and accountable stewards of the taxpayer dollar.” “As the Members know, the spend plan is due per the CARES Act in four weeks, on June 26th. The plan is currently in final review and approval, and we expect it to be on the Hill by close of business [May 29], a full month prior to the required due date,” Hoffman added. “In the interim, the Department has shown its commitment to transparency through daily and weekly updates from senior DoD leaders to multiple Congressional committees — both staff and members. In addition, DoD has provided hundreds of responses to Congressional COVID queries, and will continue to do so.” The Department of Defense announced its first use of the Defense Production Act on April 13 in the form of $133 million in contracts to 3M, O&M Halyward, and Honeywell to boost domestic production of N95 respirator masks. On Thursday, the DoD announced its latest: $2.2 million to Hollingsworth & Vose for 27.5 million N95 ventilator filters and 3.1 million N95 respirators per month, starting in August ― all to “relieve manufacturing bottlenecks and will expand N95 mask production and ventilator use.” The letter comes just weeks after the Pentagon made a surprise decision to move its point person for the Defense Production Act, Jen Santos, into a new job. But it's also as Democrats have urged President Donald Trump to dramatically increase domestic production of personal protective equipment and testing supplies. “Throughout this crisis, you have continued to lay blame for the public health response on others, from members of the previous administration to those who report to you now,” Schatz, Durbin, Tester and Baldwin wrote in a letter to Trump on May 15. “Your dismissal of the Pentagon's senior industrial policy official appears to be the latest example of removing a knowledgeable and well-regarded technocrat for no reason but to cover for your failure to fully invoke and utilize the DPA authorities.” In early May, Esper clapped back at accusations the DoD had not been transparent in its response to COVID-19. A letter from Senate Armed Services Committee member Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and nine Democratic colleagues, which accused the Defense Department of failing to adequately respond to the pandemic, contained “a number of misleading, false, or inaccurate statements,” Esper said. “Our commitment is to ensure that we provide Congress complete, accurate and timely information which we are doing on weekly basis,” he said, adding that he speaks with committee leaders on a weekly basis. “We recognize Congress has an important oversight role, but it should be an informed oversight role, and we are committed to doing that.” Aaron Mehta contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/28/the-pentagon-has-spent-only-23-of-its-covid-19-response-funds-congress-is-asking-why/