Bat  R-Bat on display Northrop Grumman offices in Rancho Bernardo photo Alex Fuller - UT San Diego

Nov. 30, 2013 By Jeanette Steele – utsandiego.com

Vice president talks about capabilities of smaller UAVs

Northrop Grumman, which engineers the Navy’s Fire Scout unmanned helicopter and the Air Force’s Global Hawk surveillance plane in San Diego, recently showed off two smaller drones at the company’s burgeoning Rancho Bernardo offices.

The defense giant has 2,000 employees at its San Diego “unmanned systems center of excellence” and recently took occupancy of an eighth building there.

And it wants to expand into new territory.

U-T San Diego spoke to George Vardoulakis, Northrop Grumman vice president for medium-range tactical systems, about the two smaller drones, the Bat and the R-Bat. He also discussed the new, beefed-up Navy Fire Scout.

Q: Give us the five-minute tour of the Bat and R-Bat.

A: Let’s start off with the Bat. This is a 12-foot aircraft with a “blended wing” body. Right now, we are in the flight test phase. We are testing these aircraft out in Yuma, Ariz. It’s got a six- to eight-hour flying endurance.

This is the R-Bat. It flies with the same control system as the fixed-wing aircraft, so we are leveraging the vehicle management computer between these two.

This one here is just for our guys to play with. It gives our engineers the opportunity to test our software and experiment.

Q: What has Bat been used for to date?

A: Bat was deployed to Afghanistan (with the U.S. Special Operations Command) for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. It was doing improvised explosive device (roadside bomb) detection for our troops.

As part of the drawdown, we brought it back home, and we’re doing additional tests. And we’re scaling from this 12-foot aircraft up to 18 and 20 feet.

Q: What are the applications in the future for these two UAVs?

A: Ideally, the R-Bat in the commercial world is used for agriculture. Farmers will do crop dusting in their fields. Today they do that with a remotely piloted joystick. In the future, at some point when the Federal Aviation Administration clears it, they could do something like that autonomously.

Q: “Autonomous” means the drone is programmed to fly a specific route, as opposed to a hands-on operator “flying it” when it is in the air?

A: We not only preprogram it to run a route, but it can also be dynamically tasked. So, while it is running those autonomous routes, we can actually intervene and say, “I’d like to continue to loiter here, or move from there to that point.”

Q: It seems like drones are the way of the future, and not just for U.S. military use. Are there other commercial applications for these two drones?

A: The reality is they will eventually be used for a lot of things. Beyond agriculture — going up and down pipelines, looking for oil leaks in the Arctic.

Doing border surveillance, outfitting them with sensors for illegal immigration — aircraft are doing that today. Going out to oil rigs to move cargo and food supplies back and forth.

At some point in the military application, medevacs in a hostile environment. There’s an unlimited number of applications.

Q: What about public use? Some people might like to own one of these themselves.

A: I don’t think we are ready for that yet. There are security concerns, public privacy concerns. I think we all have to work our way through that. We’re working closely with the FAA to make sure that we can harmoniously fly unmanned aircraft with manned aircraft. It’s early in that process. And we want to make sure that we are bringing standards of autonomy up to a level where all of us feel comfortable, so that no matter who makes it, it’s done right and safe.

Q: Let’s talk about the MQ-8C Fire Scout, the unmanned helicopter that will deploy on Navy warships.

A: (Behind me) is the second test aircraft. It’s on its way to Point Mugu (Navy base in Ventura County).

We’ve got six months of flight testing in front of us. On the back side of that flight test period, we’re going to go out to a littoral combat ship to do dynamic interface testing. And then the Navy will be deploying these things.

Q: If these are test vehicles, when will regular production Fire Scout C’s start making an appearance?

A: The very first production aircraft will be here in a month. We are delivering an aircraft to Point Mugu every month.

Q: These will deploy with San Diego Navy ships. But we won’t see them in the skies over San Diego, correct?

A: Right now the military plans on deploying these things overseas, when they are out in international waters and/or over combatant areas. We don’t have FAA clearance to fly these in FAA airspace. Unfortunately! We’d all like to see these things flying at places other than Point Mugu.

Q: Talk about Northrop’s unmanned center in San Diego. As the use of drones grows, so do jobs here?

A: We do all our design and development work here for not only the medium-range, medium-altitude portfolio that I run … but also the high-altitude, long-endurance team just down the street.

So Global Hawks, Tritons, Euro Hawks, Fire Scouts, Fire Birds, Bats — all developed here. All of our advance programs, which are the future of unmanned aviation, are also born here.

We are growing, continuing to expand. We’ve moved folks from New York and Florida who were working on our autonomous systems to San Diego to join the rest of the family.

Dec 2, 2013 ASDNews Source : Leidos

Leidos [NYSE: LDOS], a national security, health and engineering solutions company, announced it was awarded task orders by the U.S. Army to provide engineering, design and fielding support for the Emergency Management Modernization Program (EM2P). The single-award firm fixed-price task orders have a total contract value of approximately $47 million. The task orders were awarded under the EM2P for Enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) and Mass Warning and Notification (MWN), with Network Alerting Systems and Telephone Alerting System.  Work will be performed at Army installations within and outside the continental United States. 

The U.S. Army EM2P is the single integrated acquisition program for the design, procurement, fielding, new equipment training, and life-cycle management of emergency management capabilities in support of Army installations.

Read more

December 2nd, 2013 By Army News Service - defencetalk.com

Two of the three vehicles in the Army’s “Ultra Light Vehicle” program have now entered survivability testing in Nevada and Maryland, to evaluate both their blast and ballistic protection capability.

The third vehicle remains at the Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, known as TARDEC, for testing there.

The TARDEC began development of three Ultra Light Vehicles, or ULVs, in fall 2011, at the request of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. While the ULV will not be fielded as a combat vehicle, it does serve as a research and development platform that will ultimately yield data that can be used by other TARDEC agencies and program managers, as well as sister services to develop their own vehicles and equipment in the future.

“It’s all about sharing the data,” said Mike Karaki, the ULV’s program manager. “If we have an ability to share the data internally within TARDEC, and externally within the program managers and program executive offices, and beyond that with other government agencies, we will attempt to do that. It’s helping shape and inform future programs.”

Karaki said the ULV program might help development of survivability in future vehicles, and may also help development of other hybrid vehicles as well.

“You want to be able to use anything and everything you can from this program to help reduce the duplication of efforts in the future,” he said.

The ULV is a hybrid vehicle that includes lightweight advanced material armor, lightweight wheels and tires and other automotive systems, blast-mitigating underbody technology and advanced command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment inside.

“We tried to push the envelope in terms of state-of-the-art and out-of-the-box materials throughout the entire development process,” said Karaki.

The vehicle, from design to delivery, took only 16 months, Karaki said.

“We show there are some successes in the rapid design, development, fabrication and integration of the effort,” Karaki said. “It’s doable. It’s high risk and high reward. Can you do it in a rapid time frame? We’ve proven we can do that.”

The ULV is hybrid vehicle powered by a diesel engine that drives an electric generator. That generator in turn powers two electric motors that turn the wheels. Two electric motors provides redundancy should one of the motors fail.

Karaki said choosing a hybrid system came from the need to develop a more survivable vehicle for Soldiers. He said the contractor was concerned about how to make the vehicle perform better in a blast event, and came to the conclusion that a hybrid was the better choice.

Because it is a hybrid vehicle, it has none of the standard equipment underneath the vehicle. It features instead a “clean underbody” that makes it more capable of withstanding something like an explosion from an improvised explosive device.

“If you keep less equipment, accessories, systems underneath the vehicle, and you allow the underbody geometry to do what it needs to do — have a clean underbody — you will be able to improve your chances of being able to direct a blast away from the vehicle,” he said.

The primary customer for the ULV vehicle, which is a test vehicle, is the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The program came with four research objectives, which are a 4,500 pound payload, a vehicle weight of 14,000 pounds, protection that is comparable to the currently fielded mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle, and a price of $250,000 each for a hypothetical 5,000-unit production run.

Karaki said the program is meeting or is expected to meet those objectives.

“On paper, the stuff upfront, the size, the weight, the cost, the timeframe, we checked those boxes,” he said. “The testing and evaluation of all these advanced survivability systems are in process right now.”

Two of three vehicles are undergoing survivability testing now. The third vehicle is in Warren, Mich., at TARDEC’s Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory undergoing automotive testing and to evaluate its hybrid electric setup. Karaki said eventually the two ULVs undergoing survivability testing will be destroyed as part of that testing. The third vehicle, the one at TARDEC, will be kept as a test platform.

The ULV is not a replacement for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program or the Humvee. It is an experimental vehicle used for testing purposes. The program will wrap up in fiscal year 2014.

C’est ce qu’on appelle un retour gagnant. L’avionneur américain Boeing a bien failli sortir du marché des avions de combat. Tout simplement parce que son plus dangereux rival, l’insolent Lockheed Martin qui possède le record de ventes d’avions de combat avec son F-16 (plus de 4500 exemplaires), s’est adjugé le marché des avions de cinquième génération avec son F22 Raptor et son F35 Lightning II, plus connu sous le nom de JSF.

Faute de nouveaux appels d’offres de la part du Pentagone à l’horizon, Boeing était donc condamné à envisager la fermeture des chaines de sa gamme actuelle, composée de F/A 18 Super Hornet et de F-15 Eagle à moyen terme. Mais c’était sans compter sur les déboires de Lockheed Martin.

F-15 Silent Eagle de Boeing photo Boeing

Après des années de développement, l’avion de supériorité aérienne et d’attaque F22 Raptor est au mieux une demi réussite du faite de son prix supérieur à 250 M$ et de son haut niveau technologique le rendent inexportable. Et quand bien même, ce bijou de technologie qui n’est toujours pas guéri de ses maladies de jeunesse commence à accumuler des problèmes d’obsolescence. Et que dire du développement de son petit frère furtif le F35 qu’on nous annonçait dans les années 90 comme le nec plus ultra des avions d’arme à prix discount ?

Force est de constater aujourd’hui que les années de développement laborieux, jalonnées de soucis techniques, de retards et de surcoûts importants commencent à faire réfléchir plus d’un client potentiel. Certains mettent même en doute les performances de l’appareil face à des systèmes de défense modernes. Bref le crédo du « tout furtif » à tout prix ne fait plus recette.

Une tendance bien comprise ailleurs dans le monde. Ainsi l’Eurofighter, le Gripen et le Rafale conçus sur le vieux continent, qui ne sont peut être pas aussi furtifs que les avions de Lockheed Martin, mais qui revendiquent un juste compromis prix/performances. Autrement dit, le meilleur avion de combat, c’est encore celui qu’on peut se payer…

F-15 Silent Eagle de Boeing photo Boeing

Et ce n’est pas tout. Les Russes qu’on disait finis dans les années 90, reviennent sur le devant de la scène avec le MIG-35 et des évolutions toujours plus performantes des SU-30 et SU-35. Des appareils à la signature radar diminuée et dont les systèmes d’arme seraient capables, dans certaines conditions, de détecter les avions furtifs. Pour couronner le tout, Sukhoi promet une version d’exportation du prometteur T-50 Pak FA sous peu… enfin dès que son radar et ses moteurs seront prêts.

Au sol, la perspective de la dissémination systèmes de détection et de défense sol-air toujours plus performants tels que les S-300 et 400 russes relèguent au rang de cibles tous les avions produits dans les années 80 et 90.

Fort de ce constat morose, Boeing, qu’on croyait condamné avec sa gamme vieillissante ne s’avoue pas vaincu pour autant. L’avionneur américain estime qu’il y a un marché dans les pays qui veulent un avion de combat qui serait à la fois moderne, furtif, éprouvé et performant. Ce mouton à cinq pattes destiné à damer le pion à tous ses concurrents américains, russes et européens serait en quelque sorte un JSF « Made in Boeing », le prix indécent et les maladies de jeunesse en moins. A défaut de pouvoir financer sur ses fonds propres un nouvel appareil, l’avionneur américain parie sur ses deux produits phares, dont la conception initiale remonte aux années 70, à savoir le F15 et le F/A 18. A chaque fois la recette est la même : on modernise le système d’arme et on réduit la signature radar.

Advanced Super Hornet de Boeing photo Boeing

Après avoir dévoilé dans un premier temps une version bodybuildée du légendaire F15 Eagle désignée « Silent Eagle », c’est au tour du F/A 18 E de subir une cure de jouvence.
L’ « Advanced Super Hornet » en cours de tests par Boeing est un FA/18 E « Super Hornet » de base sur lequel des matériaux absorbant les ondes radar ont été apposés. Les interstices entre les différents éléments du fuselage et de la voilure ont été réduits au minimum. L’autre point noir en termes de furtivité se situe au niveau des points d’emport. Sur un avion de combat classique, Les missiles et les réservoirs de carburant externes avec les fixations associées sont autant de points brillants pour les radars de défense aérienne adverse.

Advanced Super Hornet de Boeing photo Boeing

A défaut de disposer de réservoirs de carburant internes conséquents et d’une soute interne comme le F22 Raptor et le JSF, la partie dorsale du fuselage de l’ « Advanced Super Hornet » se voit dotée de réservoirs additionnels conformes tandis que les missiles prennent place dans un container ventral profilé et furtif. Ainsi équipé, le bon vieux Hornet ne sera pas plus rapide que ses devanciers, avec une vitesse maximale voisine de Mach 1.6. Il conservera cependant ce qui fait sa force, à savoir une robustesse, une maniabilité et une polyvalence air-air et air-sol de très bon niveau. Il y gagnera même un peu en rayon d’action.

En revanche sa signature radar en secteur avant sera réduite de moitié ! Pour les pilotes cela se traduit par des chances de survie accrues lors de missions d’attaque au sol où il est important de ne pas être détecté par les défenses adverses. Pour l’Oncle Sam, ce gain de performances se traduit par un surcoût de 10% par rapport au Super Hornet de base. Et ce n’est pas tout, bientôt Boeing le promet, le Super Hornet furtif sera doté d’un capteur infrarouge IRST afin d’acquérir ses cibles sans utiliser son radar à antenne active. Un peu à la manière des MiG-29 et SU-30.

Advanced Super Hornet de Boeing - photo Boeing

Il sera ainsi possible de détecter et d’identifier une cible en l’air ou au sol à 50 km de distance environ et ce, en toute discrétion. Dans le cockpit les écrans multifonctions actuels seront remplacés par un unique écran tactile. Le moteur fera lui aussi l’objet d’améliorations pour augmenter sa poussée et réduire sa consommation. Boeing vise principalement le marché de la modernisation et la prolongation des centaines de Super Hornet de l’US Navy et des appareils australiens.

Avec cette stratégie intelligente de remise à jour des F-15 et F/A 18, Boeing espère tenir ses concurrents à distance en espérant cette fois-ci gagner la compétition finale, celle de l’avion de combat de sixième génération.

Nov. 29, 2013 by Dominic Perry – FG

London - Kongsberg and Boeing have completed a successful fit check of the Norwegian manufacturer's developmental Joint Strike Missile (JSM) on to a F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Performed at the US airframer's St Louis facility, the JSM was successfully installed on the fighter's external hardpoints, says Kongsberg. The two companies will early next year conduct a wind-tunnel test of the long-range munition fitted to a Block II Super Hornet.

"The completion of the fit-check on the F/A-18 F further validates the JSM's compatibility with the existing fleet of aircraft and provides a near-term strong capability against advanced threats," says Harald Ånnestad, president of Kongsberg Defence Systems.

Integration work is also under way to allow the stealthy munition to be utilised on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Designed to take on both land and sea targets, the JSM features a low-observable radar signature and autonomous target recognition.

Additionally Kongsberg has signed a deal with New Zealand for an undisclosed number of its Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 anti-ship missiles and associated equipment. These will be deployed on the eight new Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopters to be acquired by the Royal New Zealand Navy.

Flightglobal's Ascend Online Fleets database records the service as fielding five examples of the Kaman rotorcraft, but has indicated it will acquire eight new aircraft from 2014-16, with the older models to be retired.

11/27/2013 Strategy Page

PHILIPPINE SEA (Nov. 24, 2013) An F/A-18F Super Hornet from the Diamondbacks of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 102, right, and an E/A-18G Growler from Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 141 prepare to launch from the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) during night flight operations. George Washington and its embarked air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5, provide a combat-ready force that protects the collective maritime interest of the U.S. and its allies and partners in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Peter Burghart)

WASHINGTON, 28 nov 2013 marine-oceans.com (AFP)

La Marine américaine a annoncé jeudi qu'elle n'aurait dorénavant plus recours aux services d'un sous-traitant spécialisé dans l'avitaillement qu'elle soupçonne de gonfler ses factures, quelques semaines après qu'une affaire similaire a éclaboussé la Navy.

Pointant "une intégrité commerciale douteuse", le contre-amiral John Kirby, directeur de la communication de la Marine, a précisé que les contrats en cours avec la société Inchcape Shipping Services iront à leur terme, mais que l'US Navy ne compte à l'avenir ni renouveler, ni signer de contrats avec la firme.

Le porte-parole n'a donné aucun détail sur les soupçons de surfacturation dont Inchcape se serait rendue coupable.

La société est basée en Grande-Bretagne et fournit des navires américains en Méditerranée et au Proche-Orient.

Cette nouvelle affaire intervient après que la Marine s'est vue forcée il y a deux semaines de mettre fin à ses liens commerciaux avec une autre société spécialisée dans l'avitaillement des navires dans les ports asiatiques, à la suite de soupçons de corruption impliquant plusieurs officiers.

Au centre de cette affaire se trouve le patron de la société GDMA, Leonard Francis, accusé par la justice américaine d'avoir soudoyé des officiers américains chargés de la logistique afin de privilégier sa société.

Les deux affaires ne sont pas liées, selon des responsables du Pentagone.

Inchcape appartient à Istithmar World, la branche d'investissement de Dubai World, un conglomérat basé aux Emirats arabes unis.

28 November 2013 naval-technology.com

The US Navy's Raytheon-developed Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) tactical missile has achieved initial operation capability following its successful installation onboard Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile vessel USS Kidd (DDG 100) in San Diego, California, US.

Designed to provide extended range protection for naval vessels against cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and fixed and rotary wing aircraft, the SM-6 missile entered full rate production while the programme has delivered 50 missiles ahead of schedule and under budget.

Surface Ship Weapons major programme manager captain Mike Ladner the SM-6 missile has achieved initial operational capability on schedule.

"The SM-6, with its ability to extend the battle space, truly improves shipboard air defence capability," Ladner said.

The missile is scheduled to undergo follow-on test and evaluation in 2013 and 2014 aimed to demonstrate the integrated fire control capability in an operationally realistic environment.

In May 2013, Raytheon's SM-6 had received full-rate production approval from the US Defense Acquisition Board.

Capable of offering over-the-horizon air defence capability, the missile features advanced signal processing and guidance control capabilities of the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM).

Raytheon Standard Missile one, two, and six programmes senior director Mike Campisi said the company delivered the first SM-6 production round to the US Navy in February 2011.

Forming part of a major component in the US Navy's naval integrated fire control-counter air (NIFC-CA), the system uses both active and semi-active guidance modes and advanced fusing techniques to protect against several air threats.

Third Interceptor Site: Possible East Coast locations for an additional ground-based interceptor site are being examined by the Missile Defense Agency. (US Missile Defense Agency)

Nov. 26, 2013  By PAUL McLEARY – Defense news

WASHINGTON — While the debate continues over how soon Iran or North Korea might be able to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could strike the US mainland, the US government is forging ahead with controversial plans to beef up its domestic missile defense capabilities well before any threat has materialized.

In September, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that in addition to the two ground-based interceptor (GBI) sites it operates in Alaska and California, it has started looking at five potential locations to house a third site in the eastern US.

Inspecting a variety of sites will allow the Pentagon to begin environmental assessments if a skeptical Congress eventually reaches agreement on the project and finds the necessary funding.

The prospective sites at Fort Drum, N.Y.; Camp Ethan Allen Training Site, Vt.; Naval Air Station Portsmouth, Maine; Camp Ravenna, Ohio; and the Fort Custer Training Center, Mich., are all on federal land. The existing GBI sites at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., house a total of 30 missiles, with another 14 to be added at Fort Greely by 2017 at a cost of about $1 billion.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that expanding the ground-based midcourse defense system to the East Coast would cost about $3.5 billion over the next five years.

Boeing acts as the prime contractor that manages the Pentagon’s program to defeat long-range missile threats, while Raytheon and Orbital Sciences have teamed to build both the interceptors and rockets.

The issue of an additional GBI site on the East Cost sparked controversy on Capitol Hill this summer, as Senate Democrats pushed back against congressional Republicans who again included money for the site in their 2013 defense budget markup. The Republicans also attempted to fund the third site in the 2012 budget, but Senate Democrats defeated the measure.

In June, the the Raytheon-made GBI system failed another MDA test, making it the fourth failed test of the capability — each costing about $70 million — since 2010, but the Pentagon insists that it will keep trying.

While the interceptor sites remain embroiled in controversy, several long-term missile tracking and interceptor technologies are ensnared in Pentagon red tape.

Since the late 1990s, the Army has been working on a variety of tethered aerostats that would be capable of tracking incoming missiles. After years of testing, Raytheon won the bid to actually design and build the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) in 2005.

JLENS can reach an altitude of 10,000 feet and stay aloft for 30 days, and its 360-degree sensor package can scan the air, land and sea for up to 340 miles.

But budget pressures and long development times caused the Pentagon to radically scale back the program — which has completed its recent battery of tests — in the fiscal 2013 defense budget. The Army said it would build just two JLENS orbits instead of the 16 it originally wanted, saving the service an estimated $1.75 billion over the next half decade.

That hasn’t stopped the Army from preparing to send the JLENS to the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in 2014 to begin three years of tests in the highly congested airspace, roadways and sea lanes of the National Capital Region.

But the inability of Congress to pass a federal budget is putting that testing program at risk. In written testimony Oct. 23 to the House Armed Services Committee, Army acquisition chief Heidi Shyu said that without a full defense budget in 2014, JLENS “cannot meet scheduled construction plans.”

While JLENS continues to exist in a state of suspended — but tethered — animation, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) developed by the US, Italy and Germany for about US $3.4 billion — with more than $2 billion coming from the United States — continues to move forward. In early November, MEADS, a 360-degree radar and missile system designed to knock down missile threats, intercepted and destroyed two targets simultaneously at the White Sands Missile range in New Mexico.

The only hitch is that after spending billions to develop the technology, the US Army has said it will continue to modernize and upgrade its existing Patriot missile batteries instead of buying MEADS, and the November test was its last.

But the program isn’t completely dead. The Army is assessing potential technologies it might want to “harvest” from MEADS and has promised to submit a report to the Pentagon in the spring outlining what elements of the program it might be able to use.

While all of this work is being done in the face of perceived threats, some perhaps inconvenient geostrategic facts are emerging. In November, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies released a report saying that Iran “is unlikely to have such a weapon before the end of the decade.”

Looking at efforts similar to Iran’s program to develop long-range ICBMs, the study concluded it’s “reasonable to conclude that Iran is unlikely to move on to producing an operational intermediate-range [missile], powered by a 20- to 25-ton first-stage motor within the next five years,” and “an ICBM powered by a first-stage motor in excess of 30 tons would likely require an additional five to 10 years, if not more.”

The US Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program will replace the service's M113 armored personnel carrier. (US Army)

Nov. 26, 2013 - By PAUL McLEARY – Defense News

WASHINGTON — After releasing several draft request for proposal (RFP) documents over the past year, on Tuesday the US Army finally released the final specs for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle’s (AMPV’s) engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase.

Despite sequestration and the service’s need to cut billions of dollars from its budget in the coming years, the program appears to be soldiering on, with a solid requirement of 2,907 vehicles to be built over 13 years at roughly $1.8 million apiece.

In October, the service announced it intended to delay the start of the program by a year while raising developmental costs by several hundred million dollars in its quest to replace thousands of Vietnam War-era M113 tracked armored personnel carriers.

The new document says the Army plans to award a five-year EMD contract in May 2014 to one contractor who will manufacture 29 vehicles for government testing, followed by a three-year low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract beginning in 2020.

Earlier documents estimated the EMD phase would run from fiscal years 2014 to 2017 and cost $388 million. But the final plan stretches that out while adding to the overall price tag. The EMD phase will run from fiscal 2015 to 2019 and cost $458 million to develop and build the 29 prototypes.

The document released Tuesday lowered that number slightly to $436 million.

Likewise, whereas the estimate for the LRIP order of 289 vehicles between 2018 and 2020 was initially pegged at $1.08 billion, the Tuesday RFP lists three options for the LRIP years totaling $1.2 billion, giving the program a $1.68 billion budget before full-rate production begins.

The Army requested $116 million in its fiscal 2014 budget for development activities for the AMPV, which Congress approved.

The LRIP order will go to only one winner, and BAE Systems and General Dynamics are vying for the final prize.

BAE is offering a variant of its turretless Bradley, while General Dynamics is offering either its wheeled double V-hull Stryker, or a newer tracked version of the Stryker.

The AMPV has taken on increasing importance in recent months as the Army appears to be moving away from continuing to develop the costly — and increasingly heavy — ground combat vehicle as its primary heavy infantry carrier of the future.

What that will mean for the AMPV, and how much of the program will survive the current budget environment, likely will not become clear for several months as the military services work through their five-year budget proposals and have them reviewed by the secretary of defense.

The MQ-8C Fire Scout is the Navy's newest unmanned helicopter that can fly twice as long and carry three times more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance payloads than the existing variant.

Nov 27, 2013 (SPX)

San Diego CA - Northrop Grumman has delivered the second MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopter to the U.S. Navy after completing final assembly at the company's unmanned systems center in Moss Point, Miss.

The aircraft is joining the first one delivered to Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, Calif., to conduct flight testing before using the system for operational missions in 2014.

"Since 2006 we have conducted final assembly of the earlier MQ-8B Fire Scout aircraft from our Moss Point facility, so we have a lot of manufacturing experience there," said George Vardoulakis, vice president for medium range tactical systems, Northrop Grumman.

"With the MQ-8C variant being assembled there as well, we can use the same expertise and quality processes already developed."

The MQ-8C Fire Scout is the Navy's newest unmanned helicopter that can fly twice as long and carry three times more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance payloads than the existing variant.

To prepare the second MQ-8C Fire Scout for flight operations, a series of ground and flight tests will occur to validate payload integration and that communications between the ground control system and the aircraft are working properly.

Including the two test aircraft, 14 new Fire Scouts are currently under contract to be built. The Navy's current plan is to purchase 30 MQ-8C Fire Scouts.

24 novembre 2013 Mike Blanchfield - La Presse Canadienne

OTTAWA - L'ancien négociateur en chef du Canada pour la convention sur les armes à sous-munitions accuse le gouvernement Harper d'avoir trahi la confiance des autres pays signataires en insérant une clause controversée au projet de loi sur la ratification du traité.

Earl Turcotte y est allé de cette allégation dans une déclaration écrite soumise au Comité des Affaires étrangères des Communes, qui tient ces jours-ci des audiences sur le projet de loi C-6.

Le Canada fait l'objet d'une vive condamnation à l'échelle internationale - et même de la part du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge, habituellement neutre -, en raison de cette clause. En vertu de cette disposition, les Forces armées canadiennes seraient autorisées à être impliquées dans des opérations militaires usant de telles bombes au cours d'activités conjointes avec des États non-signataires du traité, dont les États-Unis.

Selon certains observateurs, cette clause limiterait la portée du traité, qui vise à interdire le recours à une arme particulièrement dommageable pour les populations civiles.

M. Turcotte a depuis claqué la porte de la fonction publique pour manifester son opposition à l'interprétation du gouvernement de la disposition contestée.

Il dit avoir rassuré les partenaires internationaux du Canada pendant les négociations en leur affirmant que le pays ne se servirait pas de l'article autorisant les opérations conjointes avec des États non-signataires comme d'une échappatoire pour recourir à des bombes à sous-munitions.

«En tant que président de la délégation, c'est moi qui ai fait toutes les annonces au nom du Canada pendant les séances plénières. Je sais ce que j'ai dit au nom de notre pays, et ce, avec l'appui politique et de tous les niveaux à ce moment-là. Je sais aussi comment cela a été compris puis accepté par tous les 108 États qui prenaient part aux négociations», a-t-il écrit.

«Le projet de loi C-6 constitue une volte-face sur plusieurs engagements clés pris par le Canada pendant les négociations et en signant la convention en 2008. Il s'agit d'un affront aux autres États qui ont négocié de bonne foi.»

Selon M. Turcotte, le gouvernement interprète mal l'un des articles majeurs de la convention qu'il a aidé à négocier et rédiger. L'article 21 permet la collaboration militaire entre les pays signataires et ceux qui ne le sont pas.

Il visait surtout à permettre aux troupes canadiennes de prendre part à des opérations conjointes avec les États-Unis, mais pas «d'aider ou encourager» l'usage de bombes à sous-munitions.

De passage en comité parlementaire la semaine dernière, le ministre des Affaires étrangères John Baird a déclaré que la clause était nécessaire parce qu'elle préservait la relation militaire unique entre les États-Unis et le Canada.

Puis, ce fut au tour du général à la retraite et ancien commandant adjoint des forces américaines en Irak en 2004, Walt Natynczyk, de se porter à la défense de cette clause du projet de loi C-6.

«La convention elle-même, et plus précisément l'article 21, prévoit cela. Nous avons sans doute la collaboration la plus intégrée en matière de défense et de sécurité que deux pays peuvent avoir dans ce monde», a déclaré M. Baird, en entrevue.

«Aucun membre des Forces armées canadiennes ne jettera de bombes à sous-munitions sur quiconque, jamais», a affirmé M. Baird devant les journalistes lors d'une conférence de presse, dimanche.

M. Turcotte qualifie l'argument de M. Baird sur la préservation des relations militaires entre les États-Unis et le Canada d'«absurdité totale».

«S'il y avait eu la moindre indication pendant les négociations de la convention sur les armes à sous-munitions que de telles activités seraient permises en vertu de l'article 21, les autres États n'y auraient jamais consenti et je ne l'aurais jamais proposé», a-t-il soutenu.

Selon M. Turcotte, il y a eu un intense bras de fer entre le ministère des Affaires étrangères, où il travaillait, et celui de la Défense nationale quant à l'interprétation à donner à l'article 21. Une lutte que lui et son ministère ont finalement perdue.

M. Turcotte a préféré tirer sa révérence après près de 30 ans de service dans la fonction publique fédérale.

Le comité parlementaire reprendra ses audiences à compter de mardi.

Le NCSM Preserver ravitaillant la frégate américaine USS Ingraham en mer d’Arabie en novembre 2001dans le cadre de l’opération Apollo, la participation militaire canadienne dansla campagne internationale contre le terrorisme (Photo: caporal Brian Walsh, CombatCam)

24/11/2013 par Jacques N. Godbout – 45eNord.ca

Combien de navires aura finalement le Canada avec le budget alloué à la Stratégie d’approvisionnement en matière de construction navale? Le chef d’État major lui aussi a bien hâte de le savoir!

En octobre, on avait la confirmation les navires de soutien interarmées de la Marine royale canadienne passeront avant le brise-glace de la Garde côtière.

Les navires de soutien présentement en service, les NCSM Protecteur et Preserver ont 50 ans bien sonnés et, devant l’impossibilité de mener les deux projets de front, il fallait choisir.

Le chef d’État major du Canada, le Général Tom Lawson, a bien hâte maintenant de voir combien de navires nous aurons finalement.

La Stratégie nationale d’approvisionnement en matière de construction navale (SNACN) étant probablement sous-financé, d’autres choix difficiles devront être fait à l’avenir, mais le chef d’État major canadien, le général Tom Lawson, accepte la situation avec philosophie et s’en explique aujourd’hui dans une entrevue au journal néo-écossais «Chonicle Herald».

À lire dans le «Chonicle Herald» >>