Nouvelles

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS (KONGSBERG) has signed a new contract for new remote weapon stations (RWS) to the American CROWS-program, worth MUSD 48. The order intake from the CROWS-program has been good in the third quarter, and with this contract the total order income during the quarter from the CROWS-program amounts to MUSD 89. These orders are related to CROWS framework agreement (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity - IDIQ), which was announced 14 September 2018 with a total scope up to MUSD 498. With these latest contracts, KONGSBERG has signed contracts worth MUSD 340, equivalent to 68% of the total framework agreement. “These orders show the importance of the framework agreement and our position as a supplier of remote weapon stations to the USA”, says Eirik Lie, President Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS. https://www.kongsberg.com/news-and-media/news-archive/2019/kongsberg-has-signed-crows-contract-worth-musd-48/

Le groupe français SECAPEM créé en 1957 et la société américaine Cubic Global Defense ont signé un accord cadre de partenariat afin d'enrichir leurs offres pour l'entrainement des forces armées. Les deux entreprises ont lié leurs expertises afin de proposer une gamme complète de solutions pour l'entrainement des forces armées. Les clients français et américains pourront ainsi bénéficier de solutions complémentaires en intégrant les systèmes d'entrainement au tir réel de SECAPEM et la capacité de travail aérien de type "RedAir" de sa filiale SDTS, couplés aux solutions de simulation développées par Cubic. SDTS (Secapem Defence Training Solutions) est une filiale dédiée aux missions de service aérien. Elle peut déployer ses équipes et sa flotte d'avions rapides sur une large gamme de missions de travail aérien répondant aux besoins d'externalisation des prestations d'entraînement opérationnel des armées. Les avions de SDTS seront très bientôt équipés des pods CUBIC pour réaliser des missions de RedAir avancées. Selon SECAPEM, ce partenariat permettra "de proposer une offre globale intégrant tous les maillons de la chaine capacitaire de l'entrainement des Forces Armées tout en renforçant leurs présences respectives sur les marchés américain et français". http://lignesdedefense.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2019/09/11/secapem-20448.html

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Gen. Stephen “Seve” Wilson knows the enemy doesn't sleep. As the U.S. Air Force's vice chief of staff, he's aware of how innovation can be stifled. But that must change as the United States finds itself in an era of great power competition, he argues. Wilson spoke on a panel at the 2019 Defense News Conference on Sept. 4, where he discussed how the government can close the innovation gap, and how the military can improve its relationship with industry. What is the biggest challenge to moving innovative concepts into military operations? What I see arguably as the biggest challenge to innovation and moving it forward is urgency. And today I can't beat that drum hard enough and loud enough about the sense of urgency that the status quo simply isn't acceptable in the world that we live in. The good news is we know how to do this, we've done it before. And I'd go back to a time in our history in the early '60s when President [John F.] Kennedy said: “We're going to go to the moon and back.” In about eight years, we did 36 space launches. We built the biggest rockets ever known. And we did 36 launches in eight years. Today I look at the time frame it takes us to deliver capability, and we're nowhere on that timeline. I think we as a nation need to understand the competition and develop amongst all of us in all of our communities this sense of urgency that we're in this competition, and the status quo is just simply not good enough. So how do you enable that change? I was just at in San Antonio, Texas, visiting the 33rd Network Warfare Squadron. I met a young lieutenant with these bold ideas. He went to his boss and said: “Hey, I think we've got this really hard problem. I think I can solve it. Give me a handful of people in a couple of days and I'll be able to get after [it].” He came back and not once, not twice, but three times he failed. And along the way he asked for more people and time, until he didn't fail, and he solved a really wicked hard problem. There was a courageous lieutenant in this case and a leadership that empowered him to move forward. And then he briefed me — here's the vice chief coming to visit, [and he says]: “Hey vice chief, here's where I failed three times until we didn't.” And he brought the sense of urgency. It was about building a team, a common vision. It's really powerful, and I think it's indicative of what we need to see across all of our forces. We hear how advanced China is in areas of innovation. Just how advanced is it really? I tell people that we're the best in the world and our adversaries know it. But they're catching up. If we don't change, we could lose. We have to do business differently. We're trying. How? We hear government is not always easy to do business with. We're trying to lower those barriers and bring on people quicker and easier. We have some of the most impactful problems for our nation. And if we can get people in the door and expose them to the challenges and let them do what they can do, it's hugely rewarding. We have to make it easy. Can we make it easy where industry could come work with us, maybe even for only a few years, but [long enough] to really make a difference? How can we bring somebody in, let them work and then let them go back to industry? We both benefit from it. We have to find ways because this is about a competition for talent and good ideas. Then what do we do with it? Do we empower them and let them really work at these really hard problems? I think that's what people really want to get after. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2019/09/15/4-questions-about-innovation-with-the-us-air-forces-vice-chief-of-staff

By: Aaron Mehta NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — It's been a rough stretch for the U.S. Air Force's fleet of 62 B-1B Lancer bombers, with a pair of fleet shutdowns over safety concerns and the confirmation of plans to start retiring the plane as the new B-21 comes online, even as the much older B-52 remains in service. But speaking at the Air Force Association's annual conference Monday, Gen. Timothy Ray, the head of Air Force Global Strike Command, seemed to throw his support behind keeping the B-1 around for quite some time. In fact, in Ray's mind, the B-1′s capabilities might expand. Several times throughout the speech, Ray emphasized that while the B-21 is slowly spinning up, he can't afford to lose any capability. Indeed, Ray seemed to posture toward keeping the B-1 over the long term, according to John Venable, a senior defense fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former F-16 command pilot. “One of the major takeaways [from the speech] is that the B-1 is not going to go away nearly as soon as people thought,” Venable said, “and that's a good thing.” Under the Air Force's stated goal of 386 squadrons, the service's force mix requirement is about 225 bombers. The service currently has 156, Ray said, and even with the B-21 coming online sometime in the 2020s, planned retirements to the B-1 and B-2 would keep the bomber force under 200. Ray's belief in the B-1 spans from two broad assessments. First, freed from the heavy workload of B-1s performing regular close-air support activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fleet will experience less wear and tear, and hence survive longer than projected. “We're just flying the airplane in a way we shouldn't have been flying it, and we did for far too long. The good news is we're resetting that entire team,” Ray said. “What we thought was a very sizable load of structural issues” ended up being a “fraction” of issues to deal with, he added. Those structural issues have become particularly visible in the last 16 months, with the entire B-1 fleet grounded twice for mechanical issues. In June 2018, the fleet was grounded for two weeks following the discovery of an issue with the Lancer's ejection seat; in March 2019, another ejection seat issue grounded the fleet for almost a month. Members of Congress have since expressed serious concerns about the B-1's readiness rates, a number that was just more than 50 percent in 2018. Ray expressed optimism about the mechanical issues, saying that any fallout from the ejection seat shutdowns will be completed by the end of October, which is “must faster” than the service predicted. The second reason Ray believes there's still life in the B-1? The idea that there are modifications to the Lancer that would add new capabilities relevant in an era of great power competition. In August, the Air Force held a demonstration of how the B-1 could be modified to incorporate four to eight new hypersonic weapons by shifting the bulkhead forward from a bomb bay on the aircraft, increasing the size inside the plane from 180 inches to 269 inches. That change allows the loading of a Conventional Rotary Launcher, the same system used inside the B-52, onto the B-1. According to an Air Force release, first reported by Military.com, the bulkhead change is temporary, giving the B-1 flexibility based on its mission. Overall, the internal bay could be expanded from 24 to 40 weapons, per the service. In addition, the testers proved new racks could be attached to hardpoints on the wings. “The conversation we're having now is how we take that bomb bay [and] put four potentially eight large hypersonic weapons on there,” Ray said. “Certainly, the ability to put more JASSM-ER [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range] or LRASM [Long Range Anti-Ship Missile] externally on the hardpoints as we open those up. So there's a lot more we can do.” Said Venable: “I think it's a great idea. Increasing our bomber force end strength, we're not going to get there just by buying B-21[s] and retiring the B-1s.” “Adding a new rotary [launcher that] he was talking about, just behind the bulkhead of the cockpit of the B-1, freeing up the pylons to actually manifest more longer-range weapons and give it a greater penetrating strike capability — those are great takeaways from this particular event,” the analyst added. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2019/09/17/global-strike-head-makes-case-of-b-1-survival/

By: Aaron Mehta NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Months after announcing it would not bid on the Air Force's ICBM replacement program, Boeing is officially lobbying both Congress and the service to force a shotgun marriage with Northrop Grumman, against the latter company's will. Frank McCall, Boeing's director of strategic deterrence systems, told reporters Tuesday that the company was actively seeking “government intervention” on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, one which would require Northrop to add Boeing as at least a major sub-contractor, if not a co-equal partner. “We think clearly it's time for the Air Force or other governmental entities to engage and direct the right solution. Northrop has elected not to do that,” McCall said during the Air Force Association's annual conference. “So we're looking for government intervention to drive us to the best solution.” Technically, GBSD is still an open competition. However, Northrop stands as the only competitor still making a bid. Lockheed Martin was knocked out in late 2017, and Boeing dropped out of the competition in July. Boeing claimed Northrop's acquisition of solid-fueled rocket motor manufacturer Orbital ATK, now known as Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, gave the competitor an unfair advantage. Boeing has since made overtures toward Northrop, arguing that a partnership involving the two companies would benefit the development of GBSD. But Boeing on Friday announced that Northrop had rejected any teaming attempts. Now, it seems, the company has decided to stop playing nice and start getting real. McCall reiterated that Boeing would not be bidding as a prime on the GBSD request for proposal as is. He also would not rule out the possibility of launching a protest with the Government Accountability Office, should the Air Force not force Northrop to accept Boeing as part of its team. “I'm not spending any time thinking, ‘what if it doesn't work.' We're going to make it work,” he said. Both Boeing and Northrop are currently under contract for a tech maturation phase, which runs into next year. Asked whether the company was worried whether its TMRR contract could be cancelled early given its stance that it will not bid, McCall said: “Certainly that's a concern." However, “the service is maintaining our work," he added. They continue to accept our deliverables, continue to fund our contract. So, I think we're in good shape with the service.” Because both teams are under that development contract, McCall argued that the Air Force should take the two teams and let them begin sharing information, with the service making the final decision on what pieces of each bid would work best when combined. “What I am suggesting is the Air Force pull us in a room together and say ‘you've got 30 days to go figure out what is the right integrated baseline for the country to move forward with,'” he said. “While we have offered to Northrop a menu of things to choose from, we think the Air Force is really in a better position to go through that menu, go through the Northrop menu, and select the best option for the future.” Should the Air Force not choose that route, McCall was open that Boeing has begun engaging members of Congress to circumvent the Pentagon and force its hand. He pointed to Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama as someone who has already raised shown support for Boeing's position. McCall declined to name others, but should this turn into a legislative fight, it could come down to Boeing's supporters – with strongholds in Alabama, Washington and Missouri – versus those of Northrop Grumman. A wild card may come in the form of Lockheed Martin, who was announced as part of a ten-company national team for Northrop's bid earlier this week; as the world's largest defense firm, Lockheed could bring to bear significant firepower in Congress, and would likely be happy to knock Boeing out of the ICBM game. The Boeing executive declined to say what specific parts of the GBSD program Boeing was targeting should it end up with Northrop, but indicated that nuclear command and control — part of Lockheed's workshare under Northrop's planned team — would be one aree where Boeing's experience could come into play. Asked what percentage of workshare on the program Boeing would be satisfied with should the team-up happen, McCall declined to give a number, saying: “We told Northrop, we don't care if you're the prime or we're the prime. We're not dictating a workshare percentage.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2019/09/17/boeing-calls-for-government-intervention-on-icbm-replacement-fight

By: Nathan Strout Senate appropriators have a message for the Air Force: Make early warning missile satellites a priority. The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern over the Air Force's plan for funding the Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared system in a report on their annual defense spending bill. While the Pentagon requested $1.4 billion for the program in fiscal year 2020, the Senate spending committee noted that the request was $630 million short of what the program needs. With such a gap, senators questioned whether OPIR was a priority for the Air Force. OPIR is the next-generation early warning missile defense satellite system that will ultimately replace the Space Based Infrared System. The Pentagon has contracts with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to build three satellites in geosynchronous orbit and two covering the polar regions, respectively. In order to close the funding gap, the Air Force has made a number of reprogramming requests. But according to Senate appropriators, that's not a responsible path forward. “If the program is to have any chance of success, the department cannot continue to rely on reprogramming requests for its funding,” the committee's report read. Instead, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a far larger budget of $1.9 billion for OPIR. While that is still less than the program need, it represents an increase of $535.5 million. Those funds are in addition to reprogramming requests that could meet the more than $2 billion program need. Lockheed Martin representatives told reporters at the annual Air Force Association conference Sept. 17 that the requested increase in fiscal year 2020 funding doesn't represent a growth in costs for the program, but is the result of the rapid acquisition approach to the OPIR program. “This shouldn't be perceived as cost growth,”said Kay Sears, Lockheed Martin's vice president and general manager for military space. “But it is an accelerated schedule, so it comes with an accelerated budget.” “Next Gen is an absolutely critical capability. We've been asked to deliver that capability in a ‘go fast' environment by 2025 and we are planning to do that. That comes with a funding profile that is a little bit different than a traditional defense program,” she added. Part of that go fast approach, which Sears says results in higher up front costs, includes a payload competition between a Northrop Grumman/Ball team and a Raytheon team. “There's a lot of spending that can happen at all of those companies at the same time,” explained Sears. “That is what is driving the funding profile ― it's the payload development and the fact that (...) we have two payload developers and two capabilities that we're going to have to choose from in that critical mission area.” Senate appropriators noted in their report that OPIR is breaking ground for how to provide rapid prototypes for programs in the future and needs to be fully funded as an example. “The Committee believes the program will be an exemplar for rapid acquisition of space programs, whether the program succeeds or fails,” read the report. “Failure will have implications for Congress's willingness to fund future programs using the National Defense Authorization Act section 804 rapid prototyping and fielding authorities for similarly large, or even middle tier programs, for years to come.” OPIR has been a point of contention between the House and Senate as they work through the two annual defense bills. Earlier in the summer the House balked at the massive increase in what the Pentagon wanted for OPIR in fiscal year 2020. While the $1.4 billion Pentagon request is $630 million below what the program needs, it's $459 million above what the Pentagon projected it would need for the program in fiscal year 2020 in the previous years' budget. The House Armed Services Committee ultimately authorized just $1 billion for the program in their National Defense Authorization Act citing unexplained growth, prompting a letter from the White House arguing that a failure to fund the Pentagon's full budget request now would lead to delays and higher costs over time. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2019/09/17/should-the-air-force-spend-even-more-missile-warning-satellites/

By: Stephen Losey One of the top priorities of Lt. Gen. Brad Webb, the newly minted head of Air Education and Training Command, will be expanding the Air Force's experiment with virtual reality training. So far, the Air Force has had success with Pilot Training Next, which uses VR, biometrics and artificial intelligence to better teach aspiring pilots how to fly. Webb is eyeing similar technologies, under the name Learning Next, to improve other forms of technical training. This could include teaching airmen how to maintain aircraft, fly remotely piloted aircraft or perform other technical tasks. These programs allow students' education to proceed more at their own pace, since they are based on competency and are not tied to a timetable, Wright said. A student who already has the fundamentals down can skip the basics and go right to what he or she needs to learn. AETC is now in the process of broadening Pilot Training Next, which has been a demonstration, to the next phase of wider experimentation, Webb said. He and Maj. Gen. Craig Wills, commander of the 19th Air Force, are working on plans to expand Pilot Training Next. By next summer, Webb wants to have set up Pilot Training Next elements at several squadrons, though it wouldn't be across all undergraduate pilot training bases. A few classes after that, Webb expects, Pilot Training Next will be expanded to all UPT bases. The Pilot Training Next expansion will likely be done methodically, at one base first, Webb said, though he would not say which base AETC is looking at. “What has happened in our last couple of years with Pilot Training Next has been an explosion, out of the box, of innovation,” Webb said. “Make no mistake, the Air Force wants this inculcated as fast as we can go,” he said. AETC is already in the “nascent stages” of testing VR and other technology-enhanced training for maintenance and other technical training as part of Learning Next, Webb said. Maintenance Next is a particular priority and is happening on an experimental basis at Kelly Field at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, he said, and using VR for RPA training is also proceeding. As the VR pilot training shows, such programs can accelerate in a hurry, he said. Ethics Webb also wants to cultivate an “environment of excellence, professionalism, ethics and character development” during his time at AETC. Webb, who was previously commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, pointed to the ethical clouds that have fallen over parts of the special operations community in recent years. For example, the Navy relieved the entire senior leadership team of SEAL Team 7 earlier this month over what it described as leadership failures that resulted in a breakdown of good order and discipline while deployed. AFSOC took a hard look at itself, Webb said, to make sure it doesn't allow similar lapses to fester. “For a leader, you can never ... talk about core values enough,” Webb said. “If I had to look myself in the mirror from my last command, I can tell you my team knew our mission and vision of priorities backwards and forwards.” But while airmen at AFSOC understood Air Force core values, he acknowledged he didn't always articulate those values in his everyday “walk-around, talk-around” encounters. That can create problems if leaders assume airmen already know about the core values, he said. When a unit starts to feel the pressure from high operations tempos and a lack of resources, Webb said, that “get-'er-done” mentality can lead to bad decisions if airmen don't have a firm foundation of the Air Force core values. “If you don't have a firm foundation, you can go to a dark place with that ... ‘find a way to yes' mentality,” Webb said. “We've got to always talk about professionalism and ethics, and also always talk about our core values. That will be a capstone” of his time at AETC. Webb said he plans to continue with AETC's recent improvements in how special warfare airmen are recruited and trained, which included standing up the new Special Warfare Training Wing and the special warfare-focused 330th Recruiting Squadron. More work needs to be done to “normalize” and fine-tune those units, and more firmly fold them into AETC's everyday culture, he said. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/09/16/virtual-reality-training-for-pilots-maintainers-and-more-expands-in-2020/

By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — General Atomics has nabbed a $125 million contract from the United Kingdom to make that country's Protector military strike drone certifiable to fly alongside civilian traffic, pushing the company's agenda to be first in Europe with such a system. The money will help “complete” test and evaluation activities needed to demonstrate all safety features leading up to an eventual certification of the aircraft by British authorities, the company said in a statement. Pairing drones with civil aviation in the same, unrestricted airspace involves a complex field of still-evolving regulations. In short, unmanned planes must be equipped with sensors and controls — collectively known under the name “detect-and-avoid” — to be able to avert midair collisions just a like a human pilot would. “This completes another important milestone as we work towards the delivery of Protector to the Royal Air Force (RAF),” General Atomics CEO Linden Blue is quoted as saying in a company statement. “We have completed more than 100 qualification test flights using our two company-owned SkyGuardian.” The British Royal Air Force is slated to receive the first Protector drones in 2024, according to a service statement released during the DSEI defense exhibit in London last week. Installing a detect-and-avoid package on the aircraft became an explicit objective of the program early this year. General Atomics officials said they are working toward a so-called military-type certification by the British authorities in the summer of 2023. According to General Atomics, the company's detect-and-avoid system consists of a “due-regard” air-to-air radar and processor, which is integrated with a “Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II),” and an “Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).” The Protector also will feature all-weather performance with lightning protection, damage tolerance and a de-icing system, the statement reads. The company hopes the sale of certification-ready drones to the U.K., plus a similar deal with Belgium, will jump-start sales on the continent just as unmanned aviation reaches further into military and everyday life. While General Atomics believes its previous work with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will translate into a tangible advantage, European manufacturers are busy readying their own drones for the challenge. One industry insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there is a trans-Atlantic rift emerging when it comes to the regulatory framework for integrating large military drones into routine air traffic. On one side, companies like General Atomics are pushing toward a unified approach on both sides of the Atlantic, while manufacturers in Europe are circling the wagons to push a uniquely European path that could make it difficult for the Americans to gain a foothold. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/17/new-deal-puts-britains-protector-drone-closer-to-civilian-airspace-approval/

By: Nigel Pittaway MELBOURNE, Australia – The Australian government has selected Hanwha and Rheinmetall to participate in the next phase of its A$15 billion (U.S. $10.3 billion) infantry fighting vehicle program, being delivered under Project Land 400 Phase 3. Hanwha's AS21 Redback IFV, a variant of the South Korean Army's K21 vehicle, and Rheinmetall's Lynx KF41 will now progress to a 12-month risk mitigation activity program later this year, which will test the vehicles under operational conditions. Land 400 Phase 3 (Mounted Close Combat Capability) will acquire up to 450 tracked IFVs to replace the Australian Army's ageing M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers. A decision on which tenderer will progress to the acquisition phase of the program will be presented to government for consideration in 2022. “The two companies have been assessed as offering vehicles that are best able to meet the requirements of the Army while offering value for money for defense,” Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price said at the Sept. 16 announcement. The announcement reduces the field from four to two, with BAE Systems (CV90) and General Dynamics Land Systems (Ajax) now eliminated from the competition. Phase 3 of the overarching Land 400 program follows on from the A$5.2 billion (U.S. $3.6 billion) Phase 2, under which Rheinmetall is delivering 211 Boxer wheeled 8x8 combat reconnaissance vehicles to replace the Australian Army's light armored vehicles. Rheinmetall is assembling all but the first 25 Boxers at its recently established Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence at Ipswich, west of Brisbane. Local industry participation will be a key requirement for Land 400 Phase 3. “Australian industry involvement and Australian workers are vital to this project,” Price said. “Phase 3 is another important opportunity for Australian industry to deliver leading edge technology for the ADF.” Rheinmetall has indicated it will assemble the Lynx in its Ipswich facility and Hanwha announced on May 23 that it had teamed with EOS Group and Elbit Systems to develop the AS21 and build it in Geelong, south of Melbourne. Hanwha and Rheinmetall are also the prime contenders for the Australian Army's recently revitalized Land 8116 program, which will acquire 30 self-propelled howitzers, together with support vehicles and systems. Hanwha is proposing a local version of its K9 Thunder 155mm SPH, dubbed Aussie Thunder, which the company said in May would be assembled in Geelong irrespective of the Land 400 Phase 3 outcome. Rheinmetall is expected to offer a solution based on its PzH 2000 vehicle. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/09/17/two-companies-to-square-off-for-australias-10-billion-fighting-vehicle-program/