messages : 6945 Inscrit le : 18/07/2012 Localisation : paris Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: industrie militaire US Mer 25 Sep - 23:58
Rappel du premier message :
Citation :
ATK teste sa bombe Hatchet
Alliant Techsystems (ATK) prépare une série de tests de son système Hatchet de 7 livres (3,2kg) qui est conçu pour frapper des cibles moyennes allant des insurgés aux lanceurs de missiles Scud.
Il existe deux versions du Hatchet: l’une qui s’utilise avec un système de guidage GPS, et une autre variante plus coûteuse qui inclut le GPS et le guidage laser semi-actif pour les bombardements de précision. « Quand je veux frapper une cible à travers une fenêtre, j’utilise un laser semi-actif », explique Tim Strusz, directeur du développement chez ATK pour les programmes avancés. ATK va commencer à tester la Hatchet, qu’elle a développée avec ses fonds propres, dans le dernier trimestre de 2013. Les essais commenceront avec un test en « carry captive » (« retenue captive »), suivis de frappes contre une cible inerte au début de 2014 pour démontrer l’efficacité de l’arme. Enfin, un test complet aura lieu avec une ogive à la mi-2014. L’ogive représente environ la moitié du poids de l’Hatchet et s’appuie sur un coffre électronique d’ATK pour la mise à feu. ATK a déclaré que des militaires américains étaient intéressés par la Hatchet car elle peut équiper une large éventail d’appareils habités comme le F-35 Lightning II JSF ou bien des petits véhicules aériens sans pilote. Les militaires américains « attendent juste l’échéance opérationnelle du Hatchet » selon Tim Strusz. Il ajoute que ATK s’investit beaucoup sur les petites armes en raison de la demande croissante de l’armée américaine pour des munitions qui minimisent les dommages collatéraux. La société construit également une arme plus connue sous le nom de « Hammer » d’une masse de 16 livres (7.3 kg) que l’armée américaine prévoit d’utiliser sur un drone RQ-7B Shadow (AAI) à la fin de 2013 et début 2014
http://info-aviation.com/?p=15648
Auteur
Message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Lun 10 Déc - 10:14
Foreign Policy a écrit:
Trump’s Push to Boost Lethal Drone Exports Reaps Few Rewards
Sources say the U.S. Defense Department is stubbornly resisting the new rules.
More than six months after the Trump administration rolled out a new set of regulations promising to make it easier to sell American-made military drones abroad, no new sales have been made, and drone-makers are frustrated by the lack of concrete results.
Experts agree the administration has a genuine desire to ease the restrictions as part of a broader initiative to boost the competitiveness of U.S. products in a booming international market increasingly dominated by the Chinese. The challenge, according to observers and industry sources, is enforcing the new policy across a government bureaucracy that is both spread thin and stubbornly averse to change.
“I know senior Commerce and Defense Department leadership want to see change, but we’ve seen little to none thus far in actual exports of advanced UAS,” said Ben Schwartz, the executive director of the Defense and Aerospace Export Council at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, referring to unmanned aerial systems.
The difficulty the Trump administration has had putting the new policy into practice reflects yet another example of a government agency deliberately trying to slow-walk the president. Industry sources said the Department of Defense, particularly the U.S. Air Force, has stubbornly resisted the change.
“The Air Force has made the determination for national security reasons that certain airframes can only be transferred under the foreign military sales rule set,” rather than through commercial channels, one industry source said.
Global sales of military drones are rising rapidly, but U.S. export policy has not kept up with demand. A 2017 Rand Corp. study concluded that previous administrations’ restrictive regulations on shipping armed and unarmed drones to foreign customers has left U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage, effectively ceding the market to China.
The Obama administration also sought to ease the drone export process, but the Trump administration went further, rolling out the new policy in April. The new rules for the first time allow direct commercial sales of large, armed drones, meaning the customer can potentially buy the product directly from the manufacturer, bypassing the clunkier foreign military sales process through the U.S. government. The new policy also reclassifies drones with strike-enabling technology, like laser target designators, as unarmed, which will make them easier to export.
But Heidi Grant, the deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs, noted that despite the administration’s changes to drone export policies, “there are still going to be some systems that need to be protected.”
Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Mike Andrews said the department is “fully supportive of implementing all aspects of this Administration’s updated UAS policy.” But he stressed that “particularly sensitive components and subsystems must be sold via Foreign Military Sales (FMS), as is the case for sensitive components and subsystems for manned aircraft sales.”
“The Department is maximizing the [direct commercial sale] portion of the UAS system sale, where appropriate,” Andrews said.
Grant blamed industry for causing delays in exporting drones to allies by not building exportability—namely, protections of sensitive U.S. technology—into systems on the front end of the development process.
“What happens now is things are built for the U.S., then when there is a customer demand then they start reconfiguring for export,” Grant said. “This puts us two years behind and allows the competition to get in front of us.”
But the biggest obstacle to change, according to another industry source, is that easing drone exports is not a priority for the Pentagon, and no one has taken the lead in working out the gritty details.
“I don’t think DoD is organized with the juice to get this done,” the source said. “Everyone’s got the message, but they don’t have the bench. [Defense Secretary James] Mattis can only call [National Security Advisor John] Bolton so many times a day.”
The State Department is trying to implement a new policy approving marketing licenses that would allow companies to pitch prospective customers to buy their products, the industry source said. But right now, they have no license approvals that could not have been obtained under the old policy, the person noted.
A State Department spokesperson pushed back on claims that the policy change is not yielding results, saying the administration is making “strong progress” in implementing the new regulations. The spokesperson pointed to several recent milestones—including Japan’s agreement to proceed with a nearly $500 million sale of Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk drones—as proof the policy is working.
“As other nations begin to employ military Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) more regularly and as the commercial UAS market emerges, the United States has a responsibility to ensure that sales, transfers, and subsequent use of all U.S.-origin UAS are responsible and consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson also pointed out that the Netherlands recently signed off on the sale of four General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers valued at up to $339 million. This year, the State Department has also notified Congress of proposed sales of up to four Northrop MQ-4C Triton drone systems to Germany, valued at up to $2.5 billion, and two General Atomics RQ-7B Shadow 200 drone systems to Australia, valued at up to $218 million.
However, Congress was formally notified of all of the sales the State Department cited as evidence of change before the Trump administration’s new policy was imposed. No new drone sales have been made since the rollout.
“It is important to reiterate that the Department of Defense continues to work closely with the Department of State on all DCS [direct commercial sales] and FMS [foreign military sales] actions,” a defense official said.
In another attempt to boost sales, the Trump administration is also pursuing changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a 35-member export control body created in 1987 to prevent the spread of cruise and ballistic missiles that could carry weapons of mass destruction. At the time the control regime was set up, drones had a lot in common with one-way missiles—they were generally either used as target practice to test missile accuracy or as very short-range surveillance platforms, explains Michael Horowitz, an associate professor of political science and the associate director of Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. So the body was set up to control them, too, holding drones that can travel more than 300 km (about 180 miles) and carry a payload of more than 500 kg (about 1,100 pounds) to the same “strong presumption of denial” for export. The MTCR does not cover crewed aircraft.
But today, Horowitz argues, drones are much more akin to crewed aircraft—a recoverable platform designed to fly out, perform a particular mission, and return to base—than missiles, and they should be regulated as such.
“Regulating the export of drones and drone parts using range and payload standards relevant for missiles represents a mismatch between technology and reality, which could have negative effects,” Horowitz writes. “Placing drones in the same exempt category as crewed aircraft would reflect the technological reality and help preserve the integrity of the regime.”
Keith Webster, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Defense and Aerospace Export Council, also disputed the argument that selling more U.S. drones abroad will lead to the proliferation of WMD. Allowing China to control the market is where the true danger lies, he said.
“Actually, the best way to manage the risk of [drones] being used for WMD is for the United States to be the one that exports it to partners, because when we export things we partner with the country that’s receiving it to ensure they are using it in a safe way,” Webster argued. “When the Chinese sell these things, we have no visibility into how the user is going to use it.”
Experts are increasingly concerned that traditional U.S. allies are now turning to China for their drone needs. The Obama administration denied requests for armed or advanced unarmed drones from Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq. Subsequently, these countries, along with Saudi Arabia, bought armed drones from China.
“You’ve got to balance the competing priorities, but in this instance actually changing our policy to allow more commercial sales serves both a commercial imperative and a nonproliferation imperative,” Webster said.
The administration submitted a proposal in March to add a speed criteria to the MTCR, a short-term fix that would exempt most drones, as they generally fly at slower speeds than missiles. Ultimately, the goal is to place drones in the same exempt category as crewed aircraft.
But the administration faces several obstacles, including the fact that Russia is a member and could veto any proposed change. Webster was not hopeful any proposed changes would be approved.
“It’s surprising that on things like the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty the administration is willing to take quite dramatic unilateral actions, but on something where we are in direct competition with the Chinese and we don’t even need to pull out of MTCR there is hesitation to take unilateral moves,” Schwartz said.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Lun 10 Déc - 19:15
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
jf16 General de Division
messages : 40537 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Dim 9 Juin - 22:08
Citation :
United Technologies et Raytheon discutent d'une fusion par échange d'actions
Par AFP | 09/06/2019, 9:27 | 291 mots
Raytheon pèse à lui-seul 27 milliards de dollars de chiffre d'affaires (Crédits : Kacper Pempel)
Raytheon et United Technologies, deux grands groupes américains de l'aéronautique et de la défense, sont en pourparlers pour fusionner et créer l'une des plus grandes entreprises mondiales de ces secteurs, affirme samedi le Wall Street Journal.
La fusion des deux géants Raytheon et United Technologies, qui se ferait uniquement par échange d'actions, créerait une entreprise pesant 166 milliards de dollars en bourse. Elle pourrait être annoncée dans les jours qui viennent si les négociations n'échouent pas, a indiqué au Wall Street Journal une source anonyme proche du dossier. Cette fusion "entre égaux" selon le WSJ se ferait parallèlement au démantèlement du conglomérat United Technologies qui outre l'aéronautique, la défense et le spatial, compte aussi dans son portefeuille les ascenseurs Otis et les systèmes de réfrigération et de climatisation Carrier. United Technologies avait prévu d'en faire des branches indépendantes au premier semestre de 2020, précise le quotidien.
93,5 milliards de dollars de chiffre d'affaires à deux
Le Journal croit aussi savoir que c'est le patron actuel de United Technologies, Greg Hayes qui prendrait la tête du nouveau groupe, tandis que le PDG de Raytheon, Thomas Kennedy, deviendrait président du conseil d'administration.
Raytheon est un poids-lourds dans les missiles dont les produits les plus connus sont les missiles anti-missiles Patriot ou encore les missiles de croisière Tomahawk. C'est aussi un acteur majeur de l'aéronautique civile.
United technologies c'est Collins Aerospace, un acteur important de l'aéronautique tout comme Pratt and Whitney, qui est l'un des trois grands motoristes aéronautiques dans le monde, pour le civil et le militaire. En 2018, Raytheon a réalisé un chiffre d'affaires de 27 milliards de dollars pour un peu moins de 3 milliards de dollars de bénéfice net. Pour sa part, United Technologies a enregistré un chiffre d'affaires de 66,5 milliards de dollars l'année dernière pour un bénéfice net de 5,3 milliards de dollars.
messages : 40537 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Dim 22 Sep - 21:44
Citation :
General Dynamics unveils its new ‘light tank’ concept
Published 16:48 (GMT+0000) September 22, 2019
Photo by Jimkir
U.S. aerospace and defense company General Dynamics revealed an extremely groovy new concept tracked armored vehicle during the 2019 Modern Day Marine expo in Quantico, Virginia.
General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics, has unveiled a mockup of the new ‘light tank’ — called the Griffin II.
The Griffin II is a new combat vehicle to support infantry brigade combat teams — a lightweight vehicle that can be airlifted into battle and maneuver, dispersed if necessary, in close-quarters urban terrain, but with lethal long-range firepower to take out enemy armored vehicles.
According to the current information, the new medium-weight, a large-caliber vehicle intends to boost the firepower of airborne and other light infantry units and was designed under for the U.S. Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower program.
The U.S. Army expects that new ‘light tank’ will be a 38-ton tracked armored vehicle capable to provide Soldiers with speed, protection, lethality and the ability to wage a multidomain battle, working in concert with other ground forces to overwhelm the enemy with multiple simultaneous challenges.
The new “light tank” will have improved armor and a 120 mm main gun that reminds the Abrams’ 120 mm cannon. Griffin’s turret is a scaled-down version of the M1 Abrams turret designed to engage in combat with tanks and other armoured vehicles.
Additionally, vehicle survivability can be greatly increased with intelligent sensors that are integrated with the hardware, software and effectors to create an overarching, layered system of passive and active self-defense measures.
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Sam 2 Nov - 0:44
Citation :
The Navy’s Tomahawk Cruise Missile Is Becoming More Lethal, More Versatile
One lesson the U.S. Navy has learned in dealing with emergent threats is that it is a lot easier to adapt what you already have to new challenges than start over with a completely new solution.
The Tomahawk cruise missile, carried on 145 U.S. warships, is a striking example of this principle at work. Tomahawk first joined the fleet in 1983 and figured prominently in both Persian Gulf wars, but today’s Tomahawk is very different from the cruise missiles used in those conflicts, and tomorrow’s Tomahawks will be something else again.
Superficially, the weapon doesn’t look much different. It still resembles the “flying torpedo” first imagined by futurists shortly after the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. But internally, Tomahawk has been repeatedly transformed as new technology and operating concepts added capabilities.
These generational updates are referred to by the Naval Air Systems Command, which oversees Tomahawk acquisition, as “blocks.” The current Block IV configuration joined the fleet in 2004, adding features such as in-flight reprogramming of targets via satellite links and the ability to loiter for long periods over war zones.
But as the thousands of Block IV Tomahawks in the Navy’s inventory now begin their 15-year recertification—the weapon has a shelf life of 30 years—the Navy is using that process to once again update the weapon’s capabilities with new technologies not available in 2004.
Recertification requires that every component in the missile be inspected and tested to assure readiness for combat, so it provides an opportunity to switch out parts if new features are desired. Tomahawk’s modular design facilitates such insertions, and recertification will thus drive modernization of the weapon to a new Block V configuration.
All of the Tomahawks in the fleet will retain their land-attack capability, which enables precise destruction of high-value targets deep in defended territory with minimal collateral damage. Whether they are launched from a surface warship or a submarine, Tomahawks typically hit within ten yards of intended targets using a variety of guidance methods including GPS, inertial navigation, and terrain contour matching.
What makes Block V different is that contractor Raytheon (a contributor to my think tank) is adding an anti-ship capability and a hard-target kill capability to specific lots of the missile. The “maritime strike” variant will have a new seeker capable of precisely identifying and targeting moving warships at sea. The hard-target kill version will carry an advanced warhead capable of destroying densely-constructed enemy assets previously requiring more specialized munitions.
The need for both capabilities was dictated by emerging threats in Eurasia. For instance, the Navy increasingly finds itself facing Russian and Chinese adversaries with longer-range anti-ship munitions than those carried on U.S. warships. The maritime strike version of Tomahawk will rectify that disparity with a munition that can strike hostile, maneuvering warships over a thousand miles away.
The hard-target version will be able to take out reinforced concrete command posts and other super-strong structures that otherwise might have provided sanctuary for enemy forces. The Navy has other ways of addressing such targets—most notably with the strike fighters of carrier air wings—but by using Tomahawk the Navy will be able to destroy a diverse array of targets even when carriers are not nearby, or when they are nearby but combatant commanders do not want to risk pilots and their planes.
Block V Tomahawk thus presents itself as the most affordable option for bolstering the Navy’s arsenal of long-range precision strike munitions without having to introduce a new weapon into the fleet. The basic footprint of the missile will not change—it will still fit into vertical launchers on surface warships, torpedo tubes on submarines, and other launch systems already extant that the joint force may elect to deploy in the future. (A land-based version of Tomahawk was successfully flight-tested in August.)
The Navy has taken delivery of over 4,000 Block IV Tomahawks since 2004, about a tenth of which have been used in combat and testing. Naval Air Systems Command intends to update the arsenal to the Block V configuration by purchasing a mix of new missiles and existing missiles that have been enhanced via recertification. Some of the Block Vs will be maritime-strike variants, some will be hard-target killers, and some will be “basic” Block V Tomahawks delivering targeting flexibility and lethality similar to Block IVs.
One issue that arises in equipping the fleet for a future of great-power competition is the survivability of existing munitions in attacking well-defended targets. The Navy is contemplating purchase of a stealthy cruise missile adapted from an Air Force munition that would be exceptionally difficult for enemy defenders to counter. However, a recent internal government study found that Tomahawk is likely to remain highly viable for many years to come. The Navy does not talk much about features built into Tomahawk designed to enhance its survivability—such as its ability to perform evasive maneuvers at extremely low altitudes—but the fact that the Navy is investing in a new generation of Tomahawks speaks for itself. Survivability does not seem to be a major concern.
Block V Tomahawks are likely to cost about a million dollars each, which arguably is a bargain for a munition that can reliably take out diverse targets over a thousand miles away worth many times that amount without causing major collateral damage. The fact that new or recertified Tomahawks can be sent to the fleet without major modifications to existing launch systems is undoubtedly a plus at a time when defense spending is likely to peak and then gradually decline.
But the most important feature of Block V Tomahawk isn’t the weapon’s price-tag. It is the ability of the Navy to address emerging threats quickly, rather than having to develop entirely new weapons with all of the uncertainties that implies.
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Sam 16 Nov - 22:33
Citation :
Lockheed Martin PAC-3 interceptor test proves reliability
The U.S. Army-led missile defense flight test demonstrated the unique Hit-to-Kill capability of the PAC-3 family of missiles which defends against threats through body-to-body contact. The test also reconfirmed PAC-3 CRI's ability to detect, track and intercept incoming missiles while meeting fielded reliability requirements. The test was observed by representatives from the U.S. Army and current and potential Foreign Military Sales PAC-3 customers. "PAC-3 continues its long history of reliability and readiness in the field and remains the only combat-proven Hit-to-Kill interceptor in the world," said Jay Pitman, vice president of PAC-3 programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "Today's global security environment demands reliable solutions. We expect PAC-3 interceptors to continue serving as an essential element in integrated, layered defense systems."
Je présume probablement des marocains parmis l'assistance, ça ne serait pas illogique.
messages : 40537 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Lun 13 Jan - 20:44
Citation :
Raytheon exporte ses missiles Raytheon
13/01/2020 11:12 | BOQUET Justine
Raytheon exporte ses missiles
L'industriel américain a reçu une commande afin de produire des missiles AMRAAM, dont une partie est destinée à l'export.
Le 30 décembre, Raytheon a été notifié par le département à la défense américaine d'un contrat visant à produire des missiles AMRAAM (advanced medium range air-to-air missile). Cette commande a été évaluée de 768 283 907$ et permettra d'équiper les forces américaines ainsi que plusieurs clients exports. Un volet du contrat comprend par ailleurs des missiles d'entraînement, des systèmes télémétriques ainsi que des pièces de rechange.
La production de ces missiles, dont le nombre exact n'a pas été spécifié, devrait être réalisée d'ici le 28 février 2023, a annoncé Raytheon. Parmi les Etats devant recevoir des AMRAAM dans le cadre de contrats FMS passés avec le gouvernement américain figurent ainsi : l'Australie, la Belgique, le Canada, le Danemark, l'Indonésie, le Japon, le Koweit, le Maroc, les Pays-Bas, la Norvège, Oman, la Pologne, le Qatar, la Roumanie, l'Arabie Saoudite, Singapour, la Slovaquie, la Corée du Sud, l'Espagne, la Turquie, la Thaïlande et le Royaume-Uni. Ces 22 pays représentent 47% du contrat.
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Lun 16 Mar - 2:23
Un article très intéressant sur les "ratés" du Patriot en Arabie Saoudite contre les drones kamikazes houthis, et sur l'importance des systèmes courte portée en complément des systèmes longue portée. En définitive, le Patriot est un excellent système pour la longue portée et contre les missiles balistiques, mais contre les petits drones et missiles volant à basse altitude, il n'est pas du tout efficace, d'où l'utilité des systèmes courte et moyenne portée. Les américains aussi l'ont compris et réactive la SHORAD.
On y apprend que le radar des Patriot saoudiens à bien détecter précisément le nombre de drones qui se dirigent vers les installations pétrolières, mais volant trop bas et manoeuvrable, les missiles n'ont rien pu faire car étudiés et mise au point pour le long range. Une faille dont les houthi/iran ont profité.
Les FAR on en pris de la graine et semble se diriger visiblement vers ça. Avec le MICA-VL, le Sky Dragon 50, le Skyguard chinois et le Tunguska qui peut également très bien jouer ce rôle, le Patriot quand il sera officiel sera le dôme pour le long range, c'est une bonne couverture multi-couche notamment pour traiter l'altitude et les différentes menaces qui peuvent s'y trouver sur plusieurs niveaux. Je pense que les FAR devraient miser dans le futur sur ces drones kamikazes à très bas coût, lancer en essaim en nombre ils peuvent te mettre au tapis un système lourd type S-300, l'utilité tactique est bien là.
Citation :
Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop drones and cruise missiles attacking Saudi oil sites
The U.S. is having trouble defending against low-flying drones and cruise missiles after years of the Pentagon focusing on longer-range threats.
Sept. 23, 2019, 10:43 AM
By Sébastien Roblin
The United States is sending American troops to the Middle East to provide better air and missile defenses after an aerial attack on Saudi oil targets last week. The raid began around 4 a.m. on the morning of Sept. 14, with explosions rippling across the Kurais and Abqaiq Aramco oil processing facilities inside Saudi Arabia as the sound of defensive automatic machine-gun fire rang in the air.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Army sharply downsized its short-range anti-air capabilities in the belief that they were no longer greatly needed.
In theory, the oil facilities both lay under the defensive umbrella of Patriot PAC-2 surface-to-air missile batteries that the U.S. sold to Saudi Arabia to intercept aircraft and missiles up to 100 miles away. However, if Saudi radars detected the 18 triangular drones and seven cruise missiles (judging by recovered debris) that bombarded them last week, they did so too late. Instead, they were forced to fire sporadically with automatic weapons, which didn’t prevent widespread damage that temporarily disrupted shipments of 5.7 million barrels of oil daily — half of Saudi Arabia’s output.
Indeed, while the U.S. troops are intended to provide help against this type of threat — believed to have been launched by Iran — air attacks by low-flying drones and cruise missiles are exactly the types of systems the U.S. is having trouble defending against after years of focusing on longer-range threats.
Congress' demands for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are sinking the Navy Short-range air defense systems — or SHORADS in Army lingo — have existed almost as long as combat aircraft, and are used to protect vital bases and facilities, as well as troops on the front lines. In both the world wars, they consisted of heavy machine guns and rapid-fire cannons designed to rake warplanes as they swooped down to attack. During the Cold War, anti-aircraft artillery increasingly benefited from radar guidance, and were joined by heat-seeking missiles fired by vehicles or bazooka-like shoulder launchers.
However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Army sharply downsized its short-range anti-air capabilities in the belief that they were no longer greatly needed. They trusted that U.S. jet fighters could neutralize most enemy aircraft before they became a problem. Two threats that have grown significantly these days — drones and ground skimming cruise missiles — were minimal at that point: Armed drones were rare and expensive, and the Soviet Union was the only adversary that had many land-attack cruise missiles and it wasn’t expected that other countries, let alone terrorist groups, would develop them.
We want to hear what you THINK. Please submit a letter to the editor. Instead, the Pentagon saw a need for medium- and long-range air defenses like the Patriot to protect against ballistic missiles that arc high up into the exo-atmosphere at immense speeds and long distances. That’s where they focused the military’s planning — to some success, as suggested by the Saudi-based Patriot battery’s record of intercepting dozens of high-flying ballistic missiles from Yemen in recent years.
But it turned out that the threat that has grown most rapidly in recent years comes not from manned aircraft, but the drones and low-flying cruise missiles that are proliferating rapidly across the globe due to exports from China, Israel and Russia.
The Navy spent $30B and 16 years to fight Iran with a littoral combat ship that doesn't work Drones and missiles can be detected by radar, but they tend to have small radar signatures and can fly close to the ground, sharply reducing the detection range and thus opportunities to fire on them from far away. They also are easy to maneuver, allowing them to hit the coverage gaps between radars and Patriot batteries. And drones and cruise missiles are often cheaper than a $2 million or $3 million Patriot missile, meaning the supply of Patriots can be depleted much faster than the bevy of drones launching attacks.
That’s why short-range defenses that protect against targets within visual range are so important: Some targets aren’t likely to be consistently detected from far away, and long-range missiles are too expensive to use against certain cheap but numerous threats.
Even organizations like ISIS have cobbled together surveillance and combat drones. During the battle to liberate the Iraqi metropolis of Mosul in 2016-17, ISIS made extensive use of small grenade-bearing drones against Iraqi and U.S. troops.
There are some existing systems to handle these threats, but most rely on Cold War-era technology designed to shoot down airplanes and helicopters. The Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was guarded by a half-dozen Shahine short-range missile systems and radar-guided air defense cannons, but since neither of the old systems were designed for defense against drones or missiles, they did very little good.
The U,S. can't keep ignoring Saudi Arabia's egregious human right's abuses To its credit, the U.S. Army has realized the dangerous new vulnerability and in the last few years has made deploying more SHORAD capabilities one of its six top modernization priorities. Among other ideas in development, by 2022 the Army will field a specialized wheeled armored vehicle with a missile-armed turret as well as a cannon specifically for providing air defenses that accompany troops moving forward in battle.
In the meantime, to fulfill a congressional mandate to obtain a stop-gap defense system against cruise missiles, the Pentagon announced plans in 2019 to take the rare step of purchasing arms not entirely American-made. The military purchased two batteries of the Iron Dome air defense system Israel developed with help from the U.S. to shoot down unguided rockets fired by Palestinian militants. However, the missiles used as interceptors still cost around $40,000 dollars each, while commercial drones may cost considerably less. Thus drones could potentially overwhelm existing defenses with sheer numbers.
Another option in development — by China and Russia as well as the United States — is the use of laser weapons that could burn drones or missiles out of the sky with a “shot” that costs virtually nothing (though the weapons themselves aren’t cheap). Lasers also boast very fast reaction times and a high degree of accuracy. On the downside, lasers lack a kinetic “punch” to jar an incoming missile off its trajectory if the laser’s heat doesn’t do the job; they can be degraded by foggy conditions; and they require a lot of power to work at longer distances.
Short-range air defenses are not a magic bullet — and in fact work best when integrated with longer-range defenses.
Deploying more electronic warfare systems that can disrupt or even hijack the communications links between drones and their operators is another approach that has proven successful when tested in combat by Russia and the United States. Recently, U.S. Marines used a jeep-mounted jammer on the deck of a carrier to bring down an Iranian drone.
Short-range air defenses are not a magic bullet — and in fact work best when integrated with longer-range defenses. They can be overwhelmed or picked off by more advanced weapons, and may easily end up far more expensive than threats they are designed to counter. Furthermore, by their nature, short-range defenses cannot provide blanket protection for a region but must be deployed selectively to protect key facilities and vulnerable front-line combat units.
But even if there’s no such thing as a perfect defense, deploying new short-range air defenses will remain vital in the 21st century — not only to protect the lives of soldiers on the front lines or valuable military bases, but also to defend vital civilian infrastructure, as the recent attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil processing facilities vividly demonstrates
messages : 40537 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Lun 16 Mar - 19:23
Citation :
Deuxième vol d'essai pour le missile PrSM Lockheed Martin
16/03/2020 10:40 | BOQUET Justine
Deuxième vol d'essai pour le missile PrSM
Lockheed Martin a conduit une nouvelle expérimentation avec son missile PrSM.
Deuxième essai en conditions réelles.
Lockheed Martin a annoncé le 10 mars avoir mené avec succès un second tir d'essai avec son missile PrSM, pour Precision Strike Missile. L'expérimentation a été menée depuis le site d'essais de White Sands, un peu plus de deux mois après le premier test qui avait eu lieu en décembre.
Valider les performances.
Ce nouveau tir a ainsi permis à Lockheed Martin de valider les caractéristiques du système, notamment la trajectoire et la précision de l'impact lors de la mise en œuvre du PrSM. Dans le cadre de cet essai, le missile a pu être tiré depuis le lanceur HIMARS puis a parcouru environ 180 km avant d'atteindre sa cible.
Renforcer les moyens de l'Armée.
Le programme PrSM vise à doter l'US Army de moyens modernes notamment sur le plan des missiles. Cet armement sol-sol permettra ainsi « d'accroître les capacités d'attaque, de neutraliser, de supprimer et de détruire des cibles », détaille Lockheed Martin. Il peut parcourir des distances allant de 60 km à 499 km.
messages : 40537 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Lun 27 Avr - 22:07
Citation :
General Dynamics Land Systems a dévoilé son nouveau char léger pour le programme MPF de l’US Army
par Laurent Lagneau · 27 avril 2020
Dans les années 1990, la perspective d’un engagement de haute intensité s’étant éloignée en Europe avec la fin de la Guerre froide, l’US Army considéra qu’il n’était pas nécessaire de remplacer ses chars légers M551 Sheridan, les blindés « Stryker Mobile Gun System », avec leur canon de 105 mm devant être les plus pertinents pour les conflits de basse intensité dans lesquels elle s’attendait à être engagée.
Seulement, le retour de la menace dite de la « force » ainsi que la rivalité avec la Chine et la Russie ont changé la donné. Et sans doute que les retours d’expérience [RETEX] des engagements récents des forces françaises, qui ont mis en oeuvre des chars légers [AMX-10 RC, à roues nldr] dans des conflits, justement, dits de basse intensité, ont fait évolué les mentalités outre-Atlantique, où il est désormais question d’accroître la puissance de feu [et la protection] des unités d’infanteries aéroportées et légères.
Aussi, dans le cadre du programme « Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team », qui doit lui permettre de renouveler une grande partie de ses blindés, l’US Army a sélectionné deux industriels, à savoir General Dynamics Land Systems et BAE Systems, pour développer le MPF [Mobile Protected Firepower], un nouveau char « léger » chenillé d’une trentaine de tonnes. Le marché potentiel porte sur 504 exemplaires.
Pour ce programme MPF, GDLS avait présenté le concept Griffin II, un char de 28 tonnes qui, armé d’un canon de 120 mm, aurait combiné le châssis d’un blindé Ajax avec la tourelle et les équipements électroniques du M1 Abrams.
Depuis, ce concept a visiblement évolué. À l’occasion d’une visite du secrétaire à l’US Army, Ryan D. McCarthy, à son usine de Detroit [Michigan], le 22 avril, GDLS a dévoilé le prototype de char léger qu’il soumettra à l’US Army dans le cadre du projet MPF.
Et, selon Army Recognition, la combinaison d’un châssis de blindé Ajax avec une tourelle de char M1 Abrams a été conservée. Propulsé par un moteur diesel, le MPF de GDLS sera ainsi doté du système de contrôle de tir du M1A2 Sep V3 ainsi que du viseur panoramique CITV [Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer / Vision thermique indépendante du commandant], fourni par Raytheon. S’agissant de l’armement, il sera muni d’un canon de 105 mm et d’une mitrailleuse de 12,7 mm.
A priori, ce char présenté par GDLS sera mis en oeuvre par un équipage d’au moins quatre hommes : outre le pilote, le chef d’engin, le tireur et le chargeur prendront place dans la tourelle. Ce choix prend à rebours ceux faits par la France [Leclerc, Jaguar] et la Russie [T-14 Armata]. Mais, comme le souligne Army Recognition, l’US Army [comme la Bundeswehr] considère qu’un équipage à 4 est préférable pour assurer l’ensemble des tâches qui lui incombent. Seulement, un chargeur automatique peut bien être utile quand il s’agit d’assurer des cadences de tir élevées.
messages : 40537 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Jeu 11 Juin - 20:09
jf16 General de Division
messages : 40537 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Lun 7 Sep - 20:46
Citation :
04 September 2020
Northrop Grumman charges on with XM913 50 mm cannon deliveries to US Army
by Ashley Roque
Northrop Grumman remains under contract with the US Army to mature a critical component of its ground combat fleet ‒ the XM913 50 mm cannon ‒ even as the service weighs its cannon calibre requirements for the its future Bradley replacement fleet.
As of late August the company had delivered four XM913 cannons to the service, with plans to deliver seven more by the end of October, Northrop Grumman spokesman Jarrod Krull told Janes. In addition to these weapons, he noted that the company is anticipating an “imminent order” for 10 additional cannons that would be delivered to the service in 2021 for qualification, testing, and integration activities.
“The 50 mm cannon combines Bushmaster chain gun reliability with [a] next-generation effective range that will provide the warfighter with increased stand-off against near peer adversaries,” Krull wrote.
As of late August, Northrop Grumman had delivered four XM913 50 mm cannons to the US Army. Weapon development is a key component for the service’s NGCV effort. (Northrop Grumman )
The army is working with the company to further develop the cannon, in part, to support its Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) portfolio and allow soldiers to fire quicker and reach farther distances. The XM913 cannon can fire two munitions ‒ the XM1204 High Explosive Airburst with Trace (HEAB-T) and XM1203 Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Trace (APFSDS-T) ‒ and is central to the army’s Advanced Lethality and Accuracy System for Medium Caliber (ALAS-MC) effort.
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Mer 11 Nov - 19:29
The Drive a écrit:
Northrop Grumman's Plan To Replace The MQ-9 Reaper With Stealthy Autonomous Drones
We talk to Northrop Grumman Vice President Richard Sullivan about what his company has potentially in store for the Air Force's MQ-Next tender.
In the 2000s, semi-autonomous unmanned air combat vehicle (UCAV) technology was proving to be the greatest revolution in air combat since the jet engine, then it disappeared totally from the Air Force plans and nomenclature. It was as if the idea of stealthy, long-range drones simply never existed. Now, as the U.S. faces growing threats from peer state competitors with highly capable integrated air defense systems, environments in which the Air Force's current fleet of MQ-9 Reaper drones cannot survive, the UCAV has suddenly become the next big item on the Air Force's shopping list.
Dubbed the MQ-Next, the exact requirements for the Air Force's next-generation combat drone initiative remain undefined, but the service has reached out to its industry partners to see what they have to offer. Northrop Grumman, a company known for its low-observable (stealth) design capabilities and its bright history with advanced unmanned systems—namely the X-47 demonstrators and the RQ-4 Global Hawk—has thrown their hat in the ring for what will be an emerging highly-lucrative tender in the coming years.
With that in mind, Richard Sullivan, a Vice President of Program Management at Northrop Grumman, talked in-depth with The War Zone not just about their own potential drone offerings under the MQ-Next initiative, but also about their shadowy Distributed Autonomy Responsive Control (DARC) advanced mission management system that aims to control not just the MQ-Next vehicles, but what will be a family of interconnected unmanned systems that will rule the skies in the not so distant future.
What Sullivan describes in our discussion is exactly what the author posited half a decade ago, down to the platform-agnostic command and control software that will control future autonomous swarms and the other assets that will enable them. You can read all about that, as well as a deep examination of the mysterious disappearance of the UCAV from the Air Force's portfolio around 2010 and the massive implications of that reality in this past War Zone feature. In fact, to understand the potential UCAVs offer and what MQ-Next truly represents, it really is a must-read.
With that being said, let's get to our peek behind the curtain of MQ-Next and into the future of air combat with Richard Sullivan:
RS: You would be quite familiar with the platforms that are out there today if you've been staring at the unmanned environment. And you know what, I'll say, I think the platforms that are out there have been meeting the challenges of today. But with, I'll say the 2018 NDS [National Defense Strategy] and the potential adversaries, what's out there today does have to adapt and it does have to change.
What we see in the different contractual things going on is the customer looking at this continuum of, from bringing mass to the fight with Loyal Wingman concepts, as well as the high-end platform for these highly contested environment scenarios. We've got the Indo-Pacific region with the tyranny of distance. So how do you... Is that one platform? We don't think so. We see it as a family of platforms that are gonna be solving these specific customer needs...
DARC is really the foundation of adaptive autonomy that we've been working on, and this DARC technology integrates into things that you hear today about open mission systems and the OMS architecture. And one of the things that DARC does is it is able to build upon and do the flight management, sensor management, across a heterogeneous system of systems.
What does that mean?
So, DARC will optimize from an advanced mission management perspective, the mission effectiveness with all the assets that it has. And each of the assets could be different. So heterogeneous, meaning you can have different platforms with different platform performance with different sensors and different sensor performance, but what you do is you give it an objective.
You say, "Hey, I want you to image this area," and then you let the computer do what it does best, which is to optimize that parametric. So given these different variables, you optimize it with the variables you have. That's really what DARC does.
Now focusing on the MQ-Next response, which I know you're very interested in. We've just provided insight on what we could do. And this was only an RFI at the time, but we just highlighted that, given whatever the customer's emerging requirements are, we're going to look at this with affordability in mind.
Our company really prides itself on survivability and aspects of survivability. Understanding the mission set that has to do with the Indo-Pacific region, so range and endurance are key. How the mission sensors are just continuing to get better over time. Just like everything that we have, whether it's our iPhone, our cars, all the capability, and sensor capability, is advancing over time. With this OMS architecture, we can have that, I'll say that easy, or easier, adaptation of those sensors to these modern platforms.
It's all underpinned by having that adaptive smarts on board, which is DARC, which we talked about for a little bit. And how do we know that we have the right solutions? And really, it comes down to... Most of us are completely, I'll say ingrained with this digital engineering, and how we can do modeling and simulation, and bring a lot of the troubleshooting and the fact-finding to the left.
Through rigorous modeling and simulation, through operational analysis, we fly the platforms to validate the analysis, and then we can start working in the analytical domain, that we can show how a family of platforms can inherently work together to solve missions and objectives.
TR: That's an incredibly succinct take on it. It's so crazy because I literally wrote this five years ago, and down to the battle management system and everything else. It's exciting that your team is putting putting forward a nearly identical playbook... I noticed in your imagery that you guys provided to Aviation Week... That it shows an X-47B-like cranked-kite type of low-observable platform. Is that something you think is still valid going into this MQ-Next tender in the coming years?
RS: Yeah, so there was a pretty good investment to find the right solution for the X-47B for what it needed to do, and so when you think about also what it was able to prototype, it prototyped aerial refueling, it prototyped what I would consider one of the most complex takeoff and landings that could ever be humanly imagined, on a carrier deck of a moving aircraft carrier... And by the way, that was, I'll say the beginnings of DARC. That type of autonomy is what underpins DARC. And at the end of the day, Tyler, what we have to look at is, what is the customer asking for? So if they end up not asking for something that has to have as low of a signature [stealthiness], it may not look exactly the same.
But we feel pretty confident, and I think we're pretty good at our operational analysis and our mission engineering from the talent that we have, the talent that we've grown, that we feel like something that has survivability features like you see in the graphic is going to be something that's very important for, in particular that highly contested environment. And then you couple that with... Then the size of the platform gives you range and payload constraints.
So, we're really ready to adapt. It could look different, but what we tried to do was provide the customer just some ideas, and making them feel like we're not necessarily trying to reinvent the wheel, we're trying to leverage that government investment and the technology, and I think it enables us to be, have an advantage from that perspective.
TR: And I find it extremely troubling that they have to reinvest... Where are they now, the X-47Bs? Are they just sitting in Palmdale, or are you guys still using them for tests, like risk reduction work? Does the Navy own them? What's the deal there?
RS: Well, I'll say we can probably give you a heck of a lot more information later on, but Northrop Grumman now owns the two X-47Bs. And we have them in Palmdale, yes.
TR: So, they probably would be very valuable to prove this technology and show that the risk is quite low. Would that be a good assumption?
RS: With respect to... Are you saying with respect to autonomy or with respect to MQ-Next? So with respect to autonomy, I think...
TR: I think both, right? It seems like a very similar platform to what you guys are proposing.
RS: With MQ-Next, just as I said earlier, the big thing is the customer still has to come out with their requirements, so as we're trying to share with them, "Hey, these are the things we think you need to do," they're going to come back and tell us, and that's when we, I'll say when we align it.
Is it [the X-47B] a prototype for autonomy? Absolutely. Just as our HALE-ISR platforms are prototypes for what does it mean to have something on station working for a long time. Our experience with the B-2 too. We are end-to-end on the B-2, design, all the way to operations, all the way to sustainment.
When they're talking about striking something in denied airspace, in a highly contested environment, we've got the tools there for that as well. Is that what they're looking for? We're not exactly sure yet. Right? So we're kind of able to leverage across these multiple spaces, and then going back to that digital engineering, I can't emphasize how important it is to have that, say, those validated and trusted algorithms, those validated models. So that we can respond to it with the most effective solution.
And I'll just say, and you said something that I wanna say, is we wouldn't be... You could imagine we wouldn't be charging the government again for something that if they wanted exactly an X-47, the program would be cheap as heck. But as a customer, it has requirements that differ from that. One that's best as a Navy carrier landing vehicle. If the Air Force doesn't need that, we wouldn't wanna make them pay for that. And so it all depends on what the customer comes out with, at the end of the day.
TR: In regards to the DARC system, it is meant to be distributed where? Is the command and control happening on each platform? Or is it happening in a centralized manner and then you're sending data to tell these platforms what to do? What's the architecture that Northrop Grumman envisions?
RS: Well, I'll just say the exact architecture is something that you know I won't be able to share, but it is... The acronym does stand for Distributed Autonomy Responsive Control, and what that does is there is some autonomy that is placed upon each of the platforms. So the platforms become independent to the... I'll just say the dependency on comms-links, it becomes independent on the dependency of, I'll say a changing threat environment.
The threat could be IADS [integrated air defense system], it could be even harsh weather. So as the environment's changing, we're able to have adaptation. Of course, when the comms-links are in place, each vehicle will have, as you said, the data of what each vehicle is doing, as well as the mission management, the mission commander is gonna have that data at their fingertips as well...
The autonomy is distributed amongst the entire architecture... And the key thing about DARC is it's not about a commander who is controlling every step of the battle. It literally is, "Go and perform this objective," within, we call it the Objective and Constraints Model.
You give a constraint of, "This is what the aircraft is able to do, what it's able to fly, this is where you're able to fly, these are the constraints," those constraints are given to each of the distributed vehicles. And the platforms are then given I'll say scenarios where comms is out, GPS or whatever's out, they can work within those constraints themselves as well. And one of the constraints may be, "Don't go back home, go back to your other buddies, reconnect to your line of sight link," and let's make sure that force package is re-registered with themselves. And then that... Yeah.
TR: I wrote the manual to this thing five years ago! It's actually very exciting that you guys are talking about all this now, so openly, it's great. Are these higher-end penetrating drones, UCAVs, whatever you want to call them, part of a family of systems?
Are you seeing HALE [High-Altitude, Long-Endurance] drones involved as well? Are you seeing loyal wingman style drones that are attritable [optionally expendible] as part of this larger architecture that you want to build out and supply the Air Force? Or is it more like just two platforms right now, and then we'll look at the larger architecture as we go?
RS: No, no, it's absolutely as you said. It is, we're looking at a continuum, so it's a continuum of platforms that is the most effective to solve the problem. Now there's always the case of the economics, and so how we can best provide the customer with an overall affordable solution that may leverage across the entire platform space.
If sensors are common, if the engines are common, if the digital underpinnings are common, we can leverage across the larger tradable space all the way to HALE UAS type of platforms. And how do they all work together? So that's a key thing is we may not have, I'll say DARC implemented in an existing platform, although we could, but what happens is the data coming back to the mission management, to that mission commander goes back up through that mission commander.
So. the mission commander, the mission management becomes a node for which I'll say current systems that may or may not have or do not have DARC on them yet, would be able to be part of this overall architecture.
TR: Some of them would be fully integrated, they have the DARC on board, and then others would be working... You'd still be getting all that intelligence from them, you'd still be getting some datalink information, but maybe they're not cooperative 100% with the rest of the DARC equipped fleet. Is that how you can tie in legacy platforms to this?
RS: Yeah, I think and... That's probably a fair way to put it. What I would say is, we're gonna be able to optimize the architecture based on the type of control we have with each of the vehicles. So there's gonna be some vehicles that have better control, like I'm not really a Mac guy, but my understanding is my wife's a Mac person, her phone and her iWatch and her MacBook and all that, they all work as an ecosystem really well together.
And I can still tie into it with my Android phone and all that kinda stuff, and it's just not as efficient. But it's not that I'm less efficient, I can't tell that I'm less effective. She feels like I am, [chuckle] but in reality, is the information that I need to send is something that's already likely in place. So how can we use that information, and it's just the command and control that goes through its legacy path?
So you can still optimize each of these different paths, but it is maybe not as advanced, the smart systems that we want to put in place really is, I'll say coming to being today. And you highlighted some of the things that you indicated from the X-47B time frame. Some of those things are things that we're ready to go forward with today, and it looks like the customer is really interested in it now.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Sujet: Re: industrie militaire US Dim 6 Juin - 16:38
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/29737/Dynetics_Unveils____Enduring_Shield____Air_Defense__Possible_Competitor_to_Israeli____Iron_Dome___#.YLzrNS17SYU a écrit:
La firme américaine Dynetics a révélé un nouveau système de défense aérienne qui serait un concurrent à l'Iron Dome Israélien..
_________________ Le courage croît en osant et la peur en hésitant.
Mer 25 Sep - 23:58
Raytheon 
