U.S. Army Orders Additional Boeing CH-47F Block II Chinooks

Sur le même sujet

• 

  2 novembre 2018 | International, Terrestre

  NATO general: Europe not moving fast enough on military mobility

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — European nations are not moving as fast as needed to resolve long-standing logistical issues that could tie up efforts to meet invading Russian forces, according to a top NATO general. “From a military perspective, of course I would say it is not moving fast enough,” Lt. Gen. Jan Broeks, director general of the alliance's International Military Staff, said Wednesday. “It is not moving fast enough. Of course, there is always an element of how fast you can get financing, building the brigades, building the roads,” Broeks added. “It's a lot of work. but we need to be ambitious and we need to be very clear, in a military context.” Since Russia seized Ukrainian territory in 2014, NATO nations have woken up to the challenges involved in moving military forces from one side of the continent to a potential eastern front, an issue that broadly falls under the “military mobility” heading. Officials have been upfront that the situation needs a lot of work and investment, but Broeks' comments underline how much more work there is to do. Those challenges largely fall into two sets. The first is logistical — finding which roads can support the weight of military equipment, increasing capacity at key ports or repairing aged rail tracks. The second is legal — making sure nations have preapproved forces from other nations to enter their airspace and cross their borders. Broeks, who is from the Netherlands, traveled to Washington this week accompanied by Lt. Gen. Esa Pulkkinen, the Finnish officer who serves as director general of the European Union's military staff. The two were hosted by the Center for a New American Security think tank. Pulkkinen said the legal set of challenges is the one that can be most easily tackled. “These are the areas where you can proceed more [quickly]. Some of the issues are in the hands of the EU, some in the hands of the member states,” he said. And Broeks indicated there may be developments in the area of authorities coming “weeks and months” ahead of the alliances 2019 political guidance document. “When I think about rapid air mobility, it's a very critical element,” he explained. “At the moment, it is a procedural element. If we were deploying forces either through airlifts or through support through airlift, or elements of this [such as] rotary-wing and fixed-wing supporting missions, if they would not have to go through procedures for clearance, then we're there in rapid air mobility. “We in Europe control this,” he added. “We need to go with nations because nations own the airspace.” Since taking over their respective jobs, the two men have made it a point to regularly attend dinners to foster closer ties between military planning for NATO and the EU; the visit to Washington represents the first time two officers in those jobs have traveled together to America, and the trip is part of an effort to assuage concerns within the U.S. government that NATO and the EU are not coordinating defense priorities. Much of that concern stems from the EU's announcement in late 2017 of the Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defense, or PESCO, a fund for EU defense projects. American officials quickly sounded the alarm that PESCO could take funds away from NATO priorities. Both Broeks and Pulkkinen have downplayed those concerns, with the two pointing to military mobility as one example where PESCO can help support NATO nations with extra funding while providing benefits for non-NATO nations. But Pulkkinen also emphasized that while PESCO is funding some initiatives on the mobility front, it should be treated as extra help, not the central solution. Another area of joint collaboration for military mobility has come from NATO's Trident Juncture exercise, now underway. Both men said the exercise includes a focus on moving units through various airspaces and over borders. “We get lessons learned out of this because the U.K. has forces [moving] through the Netherlands, through Denmark, through Norway. The Germans move forces north. So we get a lot of this, both from interoperability and military mobility,” Broeks said. “We don't have any EU exercises at all, [so] any chance to improve the interoperability of the forces, including the EU members' state forces, is good for us,” Pulkkinen added. “We are very grateful on the EU side that some non-NATO EU allies are [involved].” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/11/01/nato-general-europe-not-moving-fast-enough-on-military-mobility

• 

  25 septembre 2023 | International, Aérospatial

  Serbia’s first C-295 cargo plane slated for inaugural Belgrade flypast

  Belgrade is eying European military suppliers amid traditional linkages to Russia's sphere of influence.

• 

  2 septembre 2020 | International, Terrestre, Autre défense

  Army Wants Industry Input For Reliable Exoskeleton (Not Iron Man, Yet!)

  By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. SOCOM couldn't build a bulletproof Iron Man. But Army experiments with more modest lower-body exoskeletons have shown real-world potential to help overburdened foot troops. WASHINGTON: Army Futures Command is drafting a formal requirement for a military exoskeleton and will seek feedback from manufacturers at a November industry day. The Army's top priority, officials told me: rapidly prototyping a system that helps the wearer “move faster, travel further, and carry heavier loads” – without breaking down in the heat of battle. “Reliability is a huge issue that needs to be resolved,” said Ted Maciuba, deputy director of robotic requirements for Futures Command. Now, don't expect a full-body bulletproof suit that can fly and access huge databases out of science fiction. “We are not going after the Starship Troopers/Iron Man system right off the bat,” said Rich Cofer, a former soldier who's now the Army's lead “capabilities developer” on the exoskeleton project. “We're not going to jump right in and expect Tony Stark... Expectation management is key.” (That's a stark contrast to Special Operations Command's highly publicized TALOS program, which explicitly compared itself to Iron Man but produced nothing of the kind). So instead of Iron Man, think Iron Leg. In a “soldier touchpoint” last December at Fort Drum, NY, Army soldiers from more than two dozen Military Occupational Specialties — ranging from infantry to supply — tried out various types of “lower-body exoskeletons,” including the Lockheed Martin ONYX that our own Paul McLeary tries out in this video. In essence, these are motorized knee braces and other wearable reinforcements for the legs that lighten the load on overburdened soldiers as they march for hours with heavy packs, manhandle artillery shells and such. The goal isn't to give the wearer superpowers, but to reduce fatigue and risk of injury. During the Fort Drum trials, “there were significant increases in the effectiveness of soldiers,” Maciuba told me. “The soldiers were able to do more with the exoskeleton than they could without.” That said, “we learned [that] there needs to be enough reliability engineered into our systems so that there is a very high probability they will not fail in use,” Maciuba continued. “It's one thing to be wearing a boot whose sole flips off. You can always take some 100-mile-an-hour tape and tape that back on your foot. It's another thing to be wearing an exoskeleton” that requires specialized training and tools to fix. So reliability will be a high priority when the Army speaks to potential vendors in mid-November. By that point, Maciuba & co. expect to have a draft Abbreviated Capabilities Development Document for industry to review and offer comment on. (Army Futures Command officially gave them the go-ahead to write the ACDD on Aug. 14th; the exoskeleton project falls under the command's Soldier Lethality team, with input from PEO-Soldier acquisition officials, Natick Soldier Systems Center researchers, and capability managers for infantry, armored, and Stryker units). While unclassified, the document will be considered sensitive and only released to qualified contractors. While the ACDD is formally considered a requirements document, Maciuba told me, it's not going to set rigid technical specs as would a traditional Army requirement. The technology is advancing way too fast to get that detailed at this early stage. Instead, he said, it will outline “desirable characteristics” but leave industry plenty of leeway to innovate on specific ways to achieve them – and the Army is open to revising those desires based on what industry says is actually achievable. “We want industry to grade our work,” Maciuba said. The industry day – which will be held online unless there's some miraculous breakthrough with COVID-19 – will include both a general session open to all contractors and one-on-one meetings with specific contractors so they can discuss their technology without competitors listening. Afterwards, Maciuba, Cofer, & co. will compile the feedback from all the companies, revise the ACDD, and send it to Army leaders for approval. The final Abbreviated Capabilities Development Document should be out by the end of 2021, Cofer estimated. The next step? Use a streamlined acquisition process known as Section 804, intended to field a working prototype within five years – that is, Maciuba cautioned, if the Army can find the funding. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/army-wants-industry-input-for-reliable-exoskeleton-not-iron-man-yet/