US Army Boomerang shot detection system integrated into mobile networks

Sur le même sujet

• 

  29 novembre 2019 | International, Autre défense

  Produire local, passage obligé des entreprises partant à l'international

  Grandes et petites entreprises doivent se plier aux exigences croissantes des États de produire sur place une partie de leurs gros contrats. Y compris Dassault Aviation pour vendre son Rafale en Inde. Enquête. Difficile d'y échapper. Les exigences de compensations industrielles, ou offsets, occupent une place croissante dans la négociation des grands contrats. Elles sont presque autant l'apanage de pays émergents, qui cherchent à accélérer la montée en gamme de leur industrie domestique, que de pays développés. Dans le seul secteur de la défense, le montant global des offsets a progressé de 25 % entre 2012 et 2016, pour représenter près de 2,5 % des dépenses militaires. Pour décrocher le contrat de 36 avions Rafale en Inde, Dassault a dû s'engager à réinvestir 50 % de sa valeur dans le pays, sous forme de fabrication locale et d'approvisionnement auprès de sous-traitants indiens. Il a ouvert un site pour produire ses avions d'affaires Falcon et le Rafale avec l'indien Reliance. DCNS a consenti à transférer une partie de sa production et de ses compétences en Australie, dans le cadre du "contrat du siècle" de 12 sous-marins. Politique du "make in India" en Inde, "Buy american act" aux États-Unis, droits de douane exorbitants sur les importations de véhicules pour forcer les constructeurs à réaliser l'assemblage sur place... Au-delà de la défense et de l'aéronautique, le parapétrolier, le ferroviaire et la filière nucléaire font aussi face à des contraintes similaires, plus ou moins structurées. "La plupart des nouveaux contrats en Afrique prennent en compte la volonté de transférer des équipes et de produire localement ", remarque Pedro Novo, le directeur de l'international de Bpifrance. Accompagner les PME et les ETI "Les compensations industrielles étaient auparavant supportées par les seuls intégrateurs. Mais à mesure qu'elles augmentent et que les grands groupes externalisent davantage, elles descendent de plus en plus dans la supply chain", pointe Philippe Advani, un ancien d'Airbus, qui préside le comité sur les offsets des conseillers du commerce extérieur. Avec le groupement des industries françaises aéronautiques et spatiales (Gifas), il a publié en juillet un guide pour aider ETI et PME à naviguer dans les contraintes de transfert de savoir-faire ou de production – souvent complexes – fixées par les gouvernements. Pour les sous-traitants, l'opération n'est pas sans risque. En Inde, le spécialiste de l'ingénierie aéronautique Ametra, qui emploie 700 salariés, a sauté le pas l'an passé en créant une coentreprise avec un partenaire indien à Hyderabad, dans le sud du pays. "Cela demande du cash, et un pillage de propriété intellectuelle peut être plus dramatique pour une petite entreprise", reconnaît Philippe Advani. "Devenir indien en Inde, par exemple, implique d'accélérer la structuration de sa société, de revoir la logistique et la gestion des flux de données, d'impliquer le conseil d'administration. Il faut un accompagnement pour mettre ces contraintes à la portée des PME", énumère Pedro Novo, qui a lancé il y a un an le fonds Build-up International afin de co-investir dans des filiales à l'étranger d'ETI françaises et étudie une vingtaine de dossiers. Certains ont fait de ces contraintes un nouvel axe de leur stratégie. Depuis deux ans, le fabricant de c'ble marnais Axon'Cable surveille les obligations de compensations industrielles des grands contrats militaires pour implanter ses nouvelles usines. "Il est plus facile de vendre à nos grands clients car ils ne trouvent pas leurs fournisseurs habituels et nous en profitons pour démarcher des industriels locaux", pointe son président, Joseph Puzo, qui a ouvert en 2016 une filiale au Brésil et prépare un bureau en Australie pour 2020. L'ETI, qui possède déjà une usine low cost en Inde, a créé en début d'année une deuxième coentreprise, Dhruv, avec un partenaire local, afin d'obtenir le statut d'"offset indien partner", qui permet de répondre aux demandes de compensation industrielle. Produire localement ne supprime pas pour autant tous les échanges. Seul l'assemblage final est réalisé à proximité du client. Les composants les plus sensibles restent exportés depuis la France. Le meilleur moyen de protéger ses innovations. Latécoère suit Thales et Dassault en Inde S'implanter en Inde ne faisait pas partie des plans initiaux de Latécoère. "Je savais que l'Inde était un pays compliqué et bureaucratique. Nous serions certainement allés dans un autre pays d'Asie s'il n'y avait pas eu les contreparties du contrat Rafale", reconnaît volontiers Yannick Assouad, la PDG de l'équipementier aéronautique. Son usine de c'blage de Belagavi, dans l'État du Karnataka, a démarré sa production en septembre. Pour vendre ses 36 avions de combat, Dassault a dû s'engager à des compensations industrielles, dont l'ouverture d'un site à Nagpur, dans l'État du Maharashtra, pour produire des pièces pour le Rafale et le Falcon. En 2017, Latécoère a décroché auprès de Dassault la fourniture de harnais électriques pour le Falcon 2000 en s'engageant à suivre l'avionneur en Inde. "Se localiser dans un pays d'offset n'était pas suffisant pour remporter le contrat car il faut avant tout être compétitif. Mais c'était la cerise sur le g'teau", reconnaît Yannick Assouad. Dans la foulée, sa nouvelle usine indienne a permis à l'ETI de décrocher un deuxième contrat auprès de Thales, lui aussi tenu à des offsets, pour son système de divertissement à bord. De quoi atteindre plus vite que prévu le seuil de rentabilité de l'usine de 300 salariés. En attendant que Dassault implante sa chaîne d'assemblage du Falcon en Inde, Latécoère exporte toute sa production indienne vers la France et les États-Unis pour Thales et se fournit en France. "Nous allons progressivement démarcher des clients locaux et essayer d'évaluer la supply chain", précise la PDG. https://www.usinenouvelle.com/editorial/produire-local-passage-oblige-des-entreprises-partant-a-l-international.N907464

• 

  2 janvier 2019 | International, Terrestre

  Army looks for a few good robots, sparks industry battle

  By: Matt O'Brien, The Associated Press CHELMSFORD, Mass. — The Army is looking for a few good robots. Not to fight — not yet, at least — but to help the men and women who do. These robots aren't taking up arms, but the companies making them have waged a different kind of battle. At stake is a contract worth almost half a billion dollars for 3,000 backpack-sized robots that can defuse bombs and scout enemy positions. Competition for the work has spilled over into Congress and federal court. The project and others like it could someday help troops "look around the corner, over the next hillside and let the robot be in harm's way and let the robot get shot," said Paul Scharre, a military technology expert at the Center for a New American Security. The big fight over small robots opens a window into the intersection of technology and national defense and shows how fear that China could surpass the U.S. drives even small tech startups to play geopolitics to outmaneuver rivals. It also raises questions about whether defense technology should be sourced solely to American companies to avoid the risk of tampering by foreign adversaries. Regardless of which companies prevail, the competition foreshadows a future in which robots, which are already familiar military tools, become even more common. The Army's immediate plans alone envision a new fleet of 5,000 ground robots of varying sizes and levels of autonomy. The Marines, Navy and Air Force are making similar investments. "My personal estimate is that robots will play a significant role in combat inside of a decade or a decade and a half," the chief of the Army, Gen. Mark Milley, said in May at a Senate hearing where he appealed for more money to modernize the force. Milley warned that adversaries like China and Russia "are investing heavily and very quickly" in the use of aerial, sea and ground robots. And now, he added, "we are doing the same." Such a shift will be a "huge game-changer for combat," said Scharre, who credits Milley's leadership for the push. The promise of such big Pentagon investments in robotics has been a boon for U.S. defense contractors and technology startups. But the situation is murkier for firms with foreign ties. Concerns that popular commercial drones made by Chinese company DJI could be vulnerable to spying led the Army to ban their use by soldiers in 2017. And in August, the Pentagon published a report that said China is conducting espionage to acquire foreign military technologies — sometimes by using students or researchers as "procurement agents and intermediaries." At a December defense expo in Egypt, some U.S. firms spotted what they viewed as Chinese knock-offs of their robots. The China fears came to a head in a bitter competition between Israeli firm Roboteam and Massachusetts-based Endeavor Robotics over a series of major contracts to build the Army's next generation of ground robots. Those machines will be designed to be smarter and easier to deploy than the remote-controlled rovers that have helped troops disable bombs for more than 15 years. The biggest contract — worth $429 million — calls for mass producing 25-pound robots that are light, easily maneuverable and can be "carried by infantry for long distances without taxing the soldier," said Bryan McVeigh, project manager for force projection at the Army's research and contracting center in Warren, Michigan. Other bulkier prototypes are tank-sized unmanned supply vehicles that have been tested in recent weeks in the rough and wintry terrain outside Fort Drum, New York. A third $100 million contract — won by Endeavor in late 2017 — is for a midsized reconnaissance and bomb-disabling robot nicknamed the Centaur. The competition escalated into a legal fight when Roboteam accused Endeavor, a spinoff of iRobot, which makes Roomba vacuum cleaners, of dooming its prospects for those contracts by hiring a lobbying firm that spread false information to politicians about the Israeli firm's Chinese investors. A federal judge dismissed Roboteam's lawsuit in April. "They alleged that we had somehow defamed them," said Endeavor CEO Sean Bielat, a former Marine who twice ran for Congress as a Republican. "What we had done was taken publicly available documents and presented them to members of Congress because we think there's a reason to be concerned about Chinese influence on defense technologies." The lobbying firm, Boston-based Sachem Strategies, circulated a memo to members of the House Armed Services Committee. Taking up Endeavor's cause was Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat — and, like Bielat, a Marine veteran — who wrote a letter to a top military official in December 2016 urging the Army to "examine the evidence of Chinese influence" before awarding the robot contracts. Six other lawmakers later raised similar concerns. Roboteam CEO Elad Levy declined to comment on the dispute but said the firm is still "working very closely with U.S. forces," including the Air Force, and other countries. But it's no longer in the running for the lucrative Army opportunities. Endeavor is. Looking something like a miniature forklift on tank treads, its prototype called the Scorpion has been zipping around a test track behind an office park in a Boston suburb. The only other finalist is just 20 miles away at the former Massachusetts headquarters of Foster-Miller, now a part of British defense contractor Qinetiq. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The contract is expected to be awarded in early 2019. Both Endeavor and Qinetiq have strong track records with the U.S. military, having supplied it with its earlier generation of ground robots such as Endeavor's Packbot and Qinetiq's Talon and Dragon Runner. After hiding the Scorpion behind a shroud at a recent Army conference, Bielat and engineers at Endeavor showed it for the first time publicly to The Associated Press in November. Using a touchscreen controller that taps into the machine's multiple cameras, an engineer navigated it through tunnels, over a playground-like structure and through an icy pool of water, and used its grabber to pick up objects. It's a smaller version of its predecessor, the Packbot, which was first used by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2002 and later became one of soldiers' essential tools for safely disabling improvised explosives in Iraq. Bielat said the newer Scorpion and Centaur robots are designed to be easier for the average soldier to use quickly without advanced technical training. "Their primary job is to be a rifle squad member," Bielat said. "They don't have time to mess with the robot. They're going to demand greater levels of autonomy." It will be a while, however, before any of these robots become fully autonomous. The Defense Department is cautious about developing battlefield machines that make their own decisions. That sets the U.S. apart from efforts by China and Russia to design artificially intelligent warfighting arsenals. A November report from the Congressional Research Service said that despite the Pentagon's "insistence" that a human must always be in the loop, the military could soon feel compelled to develop fully autonomous systems if rivals do the same. Or, as with drones, humans will still pull the trigger, but a far-away robot will lob the bombs. Said P.W. Singer, a strategist for the New America Foundation think tank: “China has showed off armed ones. Russia has showed them off. It's coming.” https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/30/army-looks-for-a-few-good-robots-sparks-industry-battle/

• 

  22 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  B-21 Development Applying Tough Lessons From B-2

  By Lee Hudson PALMDALE, California— The U.S. Air Force is taking lessons learned from the plagued B-2 Spirit bomber development program and applying them to the next-generation B-21 Raider. While it is unknown when the B-2 will retire, the aging stealth bomber may end up flying alongside the B-21. The B-2 bomber flew its inaugural flight 30 years ago from the Plant 42 runway here. Today, the Northrop Grummansite is preparing for development of the Raider and two newly erected beige buildings have popped up, likely tied to the next-generation bomber. Although technical and acquisition problems inundated B-2 development, the classified B-21 is taking a different approach. Many details remain classified, but the company and service officials acknowledge the team is being run by the Rapid Capabilities Office instead of a traditional program office. B-21 development appears to be progressing; the Air Force's No. 2 officer—Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson—has said first flight is slated for December 2021. But House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) alerted the public last year that there was a problem with the inlet design for the B-21's Pratt & Whitney-manufactured engines. Wittman says those issues were fully addressed and the program has made tremendous progress. “I've been pretty impressed by what both the Air Force and what Northrop Grumman have done in addressing these particular issues and I think we're on the right course,” he says. “Getting those things right to begin with and setting the tone and path I think is critically important.” An Air Force illustration issued in 2016 of the B-21 design suggests it may closely resemble the B-2. “The B-2 will be setting the path course for the B-21,” says Janis Pamiljans, aerospace systems sector president at Northrop Grumman. “What we've learned on B-2 are finding themselves baselined in the design for B-21 for supportability, sustainability, [and] mission capable rate.” The aging B-2s must be overhauled every nine years and are taken off the flight line for up to 12 months. Maintenance includes modifications and upgrades to antenna technology, avionics and software systems, costing U.S. taxpayers an average of $60 million for each aircraft, says Richard Sullivan, vice president and B-2 program manager at Northrop Grumman. Separately, the Air Force is funding the $3 billion B-2 Defensive Management System Modernization (DMS-M) program to enhance the aircraft's direct attack capability and upgrade its integrated air defense systems. The current DMS was designed in the 1980s and has not received any upgrades. “By leveraging ‘state-of-the-art' electronic warfare antennae, processors, controller and displays, B-2 aircrews will realize unprecedented situational battlespace awareness and dynamic, real-time threat avoidance in the most complex radio frequency emitter environments,” the Air Force says. “The inherent increased sensitivity of the modernized DMS over the legacy system, with increased processing power, will build a battlespace picture that could be shared with joint force platforms by onboard communication systems.” DMS-M is facing a possible eight-month delay as the service works with Northrop Grumman to implement an agile software development framework, Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper told lawmakers in March. Engineering and manufacturing development for the effort goes through July 2022, according to fiscal 2020 budget documents. Lawmakers acknowledge it is important that the nation's only operational stealth bomber remain relevant. But the House Armed Services Committee is concerned about DMS-M schedule delays, according to a report accompanying the lower chamber's mark of the fiscal 2020 defense policy bill. “Unless the B-2 DMS-M program makes significant changes, there may continue to be delays that will impact the success of the program,” the report says. The committee directs the Air Force to brief members on sufficient government software development expertise; contract definitization schedule; delivery schedule; determination of software baseline; and an assessment of related DMS-M-related program support. The Senate Armed Services Committee also is asking for answers regarding the U.S. bomber force. The upper chamber is requesting a brief on an updated bomber road map and plans for B-2 life cycle sustainment, among other items, according to a report accompanying the Senate's mark of the fiscal 2020 defense authorization bill. The upper chamber also would require details on Raider basing. To date, the service has been “real[ly] happy with the way Northrop has approached” the B-21 program, says Maj. Gen. James Dawkins, Eighth Air Force commander and overseer of the Joint-Global Strike Operations Center. The next-generation bomber completed a successful critical design review in December. “Everything I hear is that cost, schedule and performance is right on expectations,” Dawkins says. https://aviationweek.com/defense/b-21-development-applying-tough-lessons-b-2