A Global Hawk mock-up at the UK's Royal International Air Tattoo in 2009

14/06/11 By Stephen Trimble SOURCE:Flight International

Despite no lack of interest, acquiring a dedicated platform to detect ground moving targets on radar has eluded NATO for 20 years.

Casualties in the quest among NATO's European partners lay strewn across the historical records like the bombed-out tanks of Iraq's III Corps along the highway from Kuwait City to Basra in February 1991. France mothballed the Horizon, a radar-equipped Eurocopter AS532 Cougar, in 2008.

Italy developed the CRESO radar for the AgustaBell 412 helicopter, but that project also fizzled. Perhaps the most successful project - the Royal Air Force Sentinel R1 fleet equipped with the airborne stand-off radar - is to exit service post-Afghanistan campaign.

Each of these projects was launched in the aftermath of a failed push by the US government in the mid-1990s to persuade NATO to acquire the Northrop Grumman E-8C JSTARS airborne ground surveillance system. JSTARS pioneered the application of ground moving target indicator (GMTI) radar and spotted Iraq's III Corps en route to Basra through a sandstorm.

NATO is as close today as it has ever been to finally awarding a contract for a GMTI system, now defined as the RQ-4 Block 40 with the Northrop/Raytheon multi-platform radar technology insertion programme sensor.

Northrop submitted its proposal in March. A contract for six aircraft is to be awarded in October, to fulfil a vision nearly 20 years old.

In the interim between the JSTARS proposal and the Global Hawk-based Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system, NATO's European members have decided that they cannot afford the expense of a national GMTI capability. Instead, NATO has approved a system based exclusively on the RQ-4 Block 40 already in service with the US government.

© Northrop Grumman
An RQ-4 Block 40 in action

"The airframe and the sensor are identical to the US Air Force. The only thing we've done is we've added a European wideband datalink to the system to allow unfetterred flow of information," says Matthew Copija, director of Northrop's AGS programme. "There are no [export control] issues associated with getting the data down. We made it cleaner from an export standpoint approach."

Allowing the GMTI data to flow among all of NATO's members is critical for preserving its support as defence budgets tighten. The alliance has been making progress on interoperability over the past 15 years.

© Northrop Grumman
A Global Hawk shot over Haiti

The first step was setting up a NATO command, control and communications agency (NC3A) testbed in 1996. That led to development of coalition aerial surveillance and reconnaissance (Caesar), establishing protocols for exchanging classified data generated from the synthetic aperture radars of member countries. The next step - developing software to facilitate that exchange - brought the advent of the multi-sensor aerospace-ground joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance interoperability coalition (MAJIIC).

"NC3A started out as a testbed, it turned into Caesar," Copija says. "Caesar now has MAJIIC. [That system is about] how do they deal with interoperability within NATO on GMTI data and it's becoming a key backbone system for NATO as we go forward."

That is not to suggest that NATO has overcome the budget and operational challenges that have delayed the GMTI programme for decades. Even as member countries experimented with individual programmes, NATO tried to launch the transatlantic industrial proposed solution programme, which included the RQ-4 and the Airbus A321 with the Thomson-CSF applications radar (TCAR).

"The TCAR became the critical path for deployment of the system," Copija says. "The nations that weren't really benefiting from it, they all came away... [deciding] the return on investment and technology reuse just wasn't there for the risk and cost associated."

Instead, NATO has settled for an off-the-shelf system that includes six RQ-4s - down from eight air vehicles - based at Sigonella air base in Sicily. The system also includes an almost entirely off-the-shelf ground system. If NATO members object to GMTI this time, it will not be driven by the budget or schedule of the development phase. "This approach is a turnkey," Copija says. "It is designed to develop it, demonstrate it, qualify it and then produce it and then stand it up, all in one single contract."

For the ground station, the proposed offer calls for EADS to be responsible for the mobile system, including a communications truck and a trailer. Selex, meanwhile, is working with Romania and Bulgaria to develop a mobile operating base. "The [NATO] force commander stands up every day and says he needs it," Copija says. "It will save alliance lives and save troops on the ground and protect them. It makes them more efficient and effective at what they do. The reason it survives is operationally it has a need."

See the latest in unmanned air vehicles

Un hélicoptère Panther déployé à bord de la Marine française

(crédit : Ministère français de la Défense / Sirpa Marine)

9 juin 2011 par Nicolas Gros-Verheyde(BRUXELLES2)

Le ministère de la défense bulgare devrait, finalement, confirmer l’achat de 6 hélicoptères supplémentaires à Europcopter. Un peu à contre-coeur… Il avait passé un contrat de 18 dont 12 Cougars ont déjà été livrés à la Bulgarie et 6 hélicoptères Panther Marine restaient encore à livrer. Il souhaitait renoncer à la commande de trois de ces six hélicoptères restants ; pour cause d’économie budgétaire. Eurocopter a utilisé des arguments … solides, menaçant d’exiger le versement d’un important dédit. Le ministre de la Défense, Aniou Anguélov, s’est donc rangé à la raison, expliquant début juin, comme comme le raporte le quotidien national Sega, « qu’il est important de finaliser les négociations relatives à ce contrat, celles-ci étant toujours en cours ». Dernier point de la négociation entre les Bulgares et le constructeur franco-européen : la demande bulgare de renforcer la protection des Cougars, en installant un système de protection anti-munitions développé par l’Académie des sciences bulgares.

Jun 5 2011 DefenseNews TRDEFENCE

The Israeli Army has developed a new tool in its seemingly Sisyphean struggle against the hundreds of underground tunnels used for smuggling weapons from Sinai into Gaza, or as subterranean staging grounds for cross-border strikes into Israel.

A collaborative effort between the Army’s special technology division and EMI, a local explosive materials manufacturer, the system – known here as Emulsion – injects into the ground a blend of commercial-grade liquid explosives, each of which remains nonsensitive to mishandling or even improvised bomb attack until blended and deployed.

“It’s all automatic, carries minimal risk to troops and creates maximum, irreparable damage to the tunnels,” said Maj. Isam Abu Tarif, director of the special technology division of Israel’s Ground Forces Command.

Abu Tarif said the recently completed prototype is actually a second-generation system, following less efficient versions deployed in Gaza in the last seven or eight years. The newest Emulsion-2 prototype is self-navigating and programmed for precision deployment of explosive materials and optimum penetration of the destructive mixture.

“Earlier versions didn’t provide optimum destruction, allowing the enemy to dig around the destroyed section,” Abu Tarif said. “With this second-generation system, they’re better off digging a new tunnel.”

First reported in the latest editions of B’yabasha (On the Ground), the official Hebrew-language journal of Israel’s Ground Forces Command, the latest Emulsion prototype is mounted on eight-wheeled armored trucks. Future versions will be smaller, tailored for more challenging operational conditions and designed to be towed into high-threat areas by tank.

Deployment of the latest prototype has allowed the Army to amend its doctrine for more effective, force-protective anti-tunnel combat, Abu Tarif said.

“Under our old doctrine, our forces had to endanger themselves while transporting the explosive materials to the target,” he said. “Then they had to physically get into the tunnel to perform the mission. … And there were cases where soldiers died en route or inside the tunnels.

“But now, the two substances are housed separately and are impervious to accidental or enemy-initiated detonation,” he said. “Emulsion-2 is designed to withstand [a rocket-propelled grenade] attack. And once we neutralize the threat on approach, automation takes over with the injection of materials for optimum effect.”

Finally, Abu Tarif said the Emulsion-2 carries “a huge quantity” of two-component explosive material, allowing specialty units to destroy multiple tunnels in a single deployment to high-threat areas.

“Before, we were limited to the amount of explosives carried in an [armored personnel carrier], but now the carrying capacity is safe and unlimited … and the effect of the liquid explosive blend creates a chain reaction that extends well beyond the target penetration area,” he said.

Overwhelming Threat

Security sources here estimate a network of many hundreds of tunnels of varying levels of sophistication have been built between Gaza and Egypt. While most tunnels are built to sustain Egypt’s thriving smuggling industry for appliances, vehicles, livestock and other commercial goods into Gaza, an alarming number are used to deliver primarily Iranian-supplied missiles, anti-tank rockets, other weaponry and even military instructors into the strip via Sinai.

Another category of tunnels – some nearly a kilometer in length – are built for commando strikes and kidnapping attempts on Israel’s side of the Gaza border. Security sources here peg the number of so-called terror tunnels built to support subterranean combat operations against Israel in the dozens.

In Israel’s Cast Lead incursion into Gaza in late December 2008, the Air Force destroyed 40 smuggling tunnels in the first two days of the 22-day campaign. Since then, the Israeli military claims to have destroyed or heavily damaged 190 tunnels, 150 of them smuggling routes along the Gaza-Egyptian corridor.

Military sources here said another 40 tunnels destroyed in recent years were built to support infiltration operations similar to Hamas’ successful June 2006 attack on an Israeli tank. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in that strategically important strike, while one – Pvt. Gilad Shalit – remains in captivity. Shalit’s plight has traumatized the Israeli public and taunted a string of successive political and military leaders who have failed to secure his release.

“Combating terror tunnels is a top priority,” said Capt. Barak Raz, an Israeli military spokesman. “The orders are maximum readiness to defend our citizens and soldiers from kidnapping attempts and deny the enemy any opportunity for another strategic achievement.”

Avi Dichter, an Israeli lawmaker and former director of the Shin Bet security service, said Egypt’s decision to open its Rafah border crossing with Gaza will not erode the need for persistent and coordinated military and intelligence anti-tunnel operations.

The late May opening of Egypt’s border crossing with Gaza and its 1.5 million residents is a reversal of deposed President Hosni Mubarak’s policy of isolating and neutralizing the militant, Islamist Hamas authority in the Strip. And while Israel must remain watchful of those exiting and re-entering Gaza via Egypt, Dichter said more than 90 percent of illicit smuggling will continue to be conducted via underground tunnels.

“As much as we lament the passing of the Mubarak era, we have to admit that he could have done a hell of a lot more to blunt the arms smuggling industry,” Dichter told a seminar of Israeli military officers May 26.

“For that matter, when we had control of Philadelphi [the corridor linking Sinai to the southern part of Gaza], we, too, missed a lot of activity,” he said. “Bottom line, the tunnel threat is an eternal mission requiring very close cooperation between security forces and all branches of the Israel Defense Forces.”

10.05.2011 Vincent Lamigeon, journaliste à Challenges – Blog SUPERSONIQUE

La rumeur courait depuis deux semaines. Le délégué général pour l'armement Laurent Collet-Billon a finalement lâché l'info ce matin dans les Echos, obligeant les deux groupes à noyer le poisson dans des communiqués qui fleurent bon l'embarras : Thales et Safran discutent bel et bien à nouveau d'échanges d'actifs. Pas de quoi danser le Bagad de Lann-Bihoué, dira le lecteur intransigeant. Il n'aura pas tort : dans le genre serpent de mer de l'industrie de défense, ce projet n'est pas loin de la palme. La solution avait déjà été évoquée du temps de Jean-Paul Béchat patron de Safran et Denis Ranque PDG de Thales. Les discussions avaient repris après l'entrée de Dassault Aviation au capital de Thales, avant de butter sur l'intransigeance des deux parties.

Revoilà donc le projet sur la table de négociations. De quoi s'agit-il exactement ? En gros, un deal poussé par la DGA, lassée de financer des doublons au sein des deux groupes : Thales récupèrerait les activités d'optronique (équipements à la fois optiques et électroniques, type jumelles de vision infrarouge) de Safran, comme le viseur Strix de l'hélicoptère de combat Tigre (photo Sagem). Lequel recevrait en échange celles de navigation inertielle (équipements permettant à un engin de s'orienter de façon autonome) et de génération électrique de Thales. D'où une consolidation autour de deux champions français qui pourraient tenir la dragée haute aux américains Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell ou Northrop Grumman. Splendide sur le papier.

Le problème, c'est que les intérêts ne sont pas forcément convergents. Côté Thales, récupérer l'optronique permettrait grosso modo de doubler de taille sur un marché en forte croissance, à un milliard d'euros de ventes à peu près. L'intérêt de Safran est plus contestable : certes il récupérerait les activités de navigation inertielle et de génération électrique de Thales. Mais les spécialistes s'accordent à estimer qu'il y perdrait quand même au change, car l'ensemble resterait loin des leaders américains. D'où l'idée d'une soulte que paierait Thales, histoire de se quitter bons amis. Mais là encore, Safran n'est pas forcément intéressé : gavé de cash par le carton du moteur CFM-56 et de sa maintenance, il a plus besoin d'activités en croissance que d'un chèque qui serait de toute façon limité.

Le patron de Safran l'a bien compris : l'année dernière, il avait tenté d'intégrer aux négociations les activités d'avionique civile de Thales, une des pépites du groupe, ce qui avait passablement courroucé Charles Edelstenne, PDG de Dassault Aviation, l'actionnaire industriel de Thales. Cette activité étant exclue des négociations actuelles, pas sûr qu'un accord soit possible. A moins de tordre la main à un des deux industriels...

photo Eurotorp

03 May 2011 naval-technology.com

The MU90 continues its operational progression with the French Navy, following the delivery of the 200th MU90 light weight torpedo in July 2010 by the French Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA).

Since then, the French Navy has started to deploy its first MU90 LWT for operational exercises in parallel with batch acceptance tests. During an advanced anti-submarine exercise in April 2011, the operational crew of one ATLANTIQUE2 (ATL2) maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) successfully performed tracking, classification and long range engagement of a CALAS autonomous target simulating a submarine. Thanks to using the MU90, the French Navy has made a significant step change in ASW capability. Following early operational capability validation in 2008 in partnership with Eurotorp, the French Navy has started to conduct exercises on its own with the MU90, helping the torpedo on its next step towards full operation.

Today, almost all the ATL2 have been modified to ensure the launching capability of the MU90. The MU90 airborne solution adopted for this aircraft is a semi-integrated one so as not to interfere with the aircraft data management system while being connected to the platform attitude data, thus granting maximum freedom of manoeuvre to the crew prior to the launch. This intermediate solution has minimised modifications on board the aircraft without degrading any of the MU90’s performance. The MU90 is preset through the very user-friendly 'PCA' semi-integrated airborne presetter, providing the TACCO the full range of MU90 presets through pre-defined scenarios in which every preset can be modified if needed. The success of MU90 air launches demonstrates the full efficiency of MU90 when embarked on board any air platform.

Of 324mm diameter, the MU90 can be embarked on board any type of ASW air fixed or rotary wing aircraft. In addition to ATL2, the MU90 is qualified on board NH90, Lynx, EH101 Merlin, SH-2G Sea Sprite with different solutions ranging from stand-alone to fully integrated ones, through specific equipments or aircraft store management system. MU90, offering an unmatchable flight domain up to 900m in altitude and 400kts in speed, is today a candidate to be embarked on board all anti-submarine warfare air platforms, including the helicopters Panther, AW159, S70B, MH-60R and MH92 as well as the maritime patrol aircraft C295, ATR72, Dash8, P3C and P8. Eurotorp is already in advanced talks with the majority of air platform suppliers to achieve this goal.

The MU90 is a fire-and-forget weapon designed to counter any type of nuclear or conventional submarine, acoustically coated, deep and fast-evasive, deploying active or passive anti-torpedo effectors. The torpedo features unique system characteristics which allow real operational capability in coastal waters. The MU90 is powered through a closed-loop aluminium–silver oxide sea water battery delivering twice the energy of all the other LWTs as well as total safety. It is equipped with a fully-insensitive directed energy shaped charge warhead, proven to penetrate double-hulled large submarines, advanced acoustic head and last generation mission software. Of extremely long endurance, the engagement distance is beyond 12,000m, whatever the submarine depth. The MU90 operates without any speed degradation and without any limitation of salinity and temperature at depths >1000m or as shallow as 25m, whilst retaining navigation capability up to 3m.

The MU90 LWT is in service with the French, Italian, German, Danish, and Polish Navies, and has also been delivered and accepted by the Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). In France, the MU90 is embarked on board F70 and Horizon frigates, ATL2 MPA and Lynx helicopters. It will be also embarked soon, in France and in Italy as well, on board FREMM frigates and NH90 helicopters.

Le BPC Dixmude lors de son appareillage, hier, à Saint-Nazaire

crédits : BERNARD PREZELIN

27/04/2011 MER et MARINE

Construit par les chantiers STX France, le bâtiment de projection et de commandement Dixmude a appareillé hier, de Saint-Nazaire, pour ses premiers essais en mer. Jusqu'à samedi, le navire effectuera différents tests de propulsion et de plateforme. Mis sur cale en janvier 2010, le Dixmude, commandé en avril 2009 au titre du plan de relance de l'économie, devrait rejoindre Toulon au mois de juillet. Depuis la base varoise de la Marine nationale, DCNS travaillera à la mise au point du système d'armes et du système de combat, en vue d'une livraison du navire début 2012. Le Dixmude rejoindra alors les deux premiers BPC de la flotte française, les Mistral et Tonnerre, qui avaient été assemblés à Brest (avec une moitié avant construite à Saint-Nazaire) et furent livrés en 2006 et 2007 par DCNS. En dehors du montage industriel, le Dixmude se distingue de ses aînés par diverses améliorations, notamment l'ajout d'un propulseur d'étrave supplémentaire et une visibilité améliorée au niveau de la passerelle de défense à vue. Longs de 199 mètres pour un déplacement de 21.500 tonnes en charge, les BPC peuvent embarquer16 hélicoptères lourds, deux engins de débarquement du type EDA-R (dérivé du L-CAT de CNIM), 70 véhicules (dont 13 chars Leclerc) et 450 hommes de troupe. Doté d'importantes infrastructures de commandement, avec un PC pouvant accueillir 150 postes d'opérateurs, ils disposent aussi d'un hôpital embarqué. Un quatrième navire de ce type doit être construit pour la marine française. Sa mise en service est prévue en 2019/2020 pour succéder au transport de chalands de débarquement Siroco. Son aîné, le TCD Foudre, sera quant à lui remplacé par le Dixmude. DCNS et STX cherchent, par ailleurs, à vendre le concept de BPC à des marines étrangères. Un accord a, notamment, été signé en janvier dernier avec la Russie, qui souhaite se doter de quatre bâtiments de ce type. Les négociations se poursuivent en vue d'aboutir à un contrat.

LCS 1                                                                LCS 2

April 19, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

Now that the U.S. Navy has decided to put its new "Littoral Combat Ship" (LCS) into mass production, it faces years of uncertainty and experimentation as this radical new combat ship design seeks to find out what works, to what degree, and what doesn't. There is some nervousness about all this. The U.S. Navy has not introduced a radical new design for nearly a century. The last such new design was the aircraft carrier, which required two decades of experimentation, and a major war, to nail down what worked. Even the nuclear submarines of the late 1950s and early 60s were evolutionary compared to what the LCS is trying to do.

In the last five years, two different LCS designs were built, and put into service. Problems were encountered. The much smaller crew required some changes in how a crew ran a ship, and how many sailors and civilians were required back on land to support an LCS at sea. It was found that, so far, the interchangeable mission modules take far longer (2-3 days instead of 2-3 hours) to replace. The LCS has still not seen combat, and the navy wants the first violent encounter to be successful, or at least not disastrous. It is expected that there will be surprises, which is about all that can be guaranteed at this point.

The navy surprised everyone last year by choosing both designs, and requesting that the fifty or so LCS ships be split between the two very different looking ships. It was only recently, after over a decade of development, construction and delays, that both versions of the LCS entered service. Both were worked hard, to determine which model should become the standard design. Both ships delivered impressive performance. But the navy also believes that having two suppliers, even with different designs, will provide the kind of competition that will keep costs down and quality high. If one of the builders began to screw up, they would lose some, or all, of their orders. Such an incentive program has worked in the past. Current plans are to place an initial order for to 20 LCSs, to be built between 2011-15.

While both ships look quite different (one is a traditional monohull, while the other is a broader trimaran), they both share many common elements. One of the most important of these is the highly automated design, and smaller crew. Both ships have accommodations for only 75 personnel. Normally, a ship of this size would have a crew of about 200. The basic LCS crew is 40, with the other 35 berths occupied by operators of special equipment. But that is already being exceeded on one LCS, which has a detail of 15 sailors for handing special equipment and another 23 to take care of a helicopter. Another shortage encountered is time. Although sailors work a typical six hours on/twelve hours off routine, there are plenty of miscellaneous jobs that cut into off duty hours (taking on supplies and fuel while underway, standing fire/safety alert during aircraft or small boat operations and so on). At times, some sailors were only getting 5-6 hours sleep a day. Fortunately, the LCS uses a two crew system, with each crew being on the ship (at sea or in port) for 40 days, and then the other crew takes over. In addition to a second crew, there are more maintenance personnel available back at the LCS home port, to help with needed repairs and upgrades the crew would normally handle. But with the smaller crew, these chores will be taken care of in port, using additional personnel.

Built using "smartship" technologies, that actually do greatly reduce personnel requirements, the LCS was expected to get by with a crew of about 40-50 in basic configuration. The sea trials and three years of operations gave the militarized smartship features a workout. These sea trials were very important, because the LCS is over budget, behind schedule and, worst of all, an untried new concept. Many of the operations in the last two years have been of the sort LCS will encounter during its 30 year career. But the strain on the crew makes it clear that heavy combat operations might be more than current crew size can handle. An additional chore is the refueling at sea. The LCS was not built for long voyages, but these have to be undertaken to get the ships overseas, or moved to a different theater once there. Fuel replenishment ships must be available, and the crew has to be ready for a heavy workload.

The LCS crews are also modularized, so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules. Thus about 40 percent of the ship is empty, with a large cargo hold into which the mission package gear is inserted (and then removed, along with the package crew, when it is no longer assigned to that ship.) Thus the LCS has two crews when underway, the "ship" crew and the mission package crew. The captain of the ship crew is in charge, and the officer commanding the mission package is simply the officer in charge of the largest equipment system on board. There are a variety of interchangeable modules (e.g., air defense, underwater warfare, special operations, surface attack, etc.), which allow the ships to be quickly reconfigured for various specialized missions. Crews will also be modularized, so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules. The design and crew requirements for these module is still a work in progress, but also shows a need for more people, or more automation.

So far, the heavy workload has not hurt morale. The small crew means that everyone knows everyone, and it's standard for people to handle a number of different jobs. Even officers pitch in for any task that needs to be done. This kind of overworked enthusiasm is actually typical of smaller naval craft. These included World War II era PT boats, with crews of up to 17, and current minesweepers (with crews similar to an LCS) and larger patrol boats. There's also the "new" factor. In addition to being new ships, there is a new design and lots of new tech. This gets people pumped. But the experience of using the LCS has to be used to develop changes that will make these ships viable for the long haul.

The two different LCS designs are from Lockheed-Martin (monohull) and General Dynamics (trimaran). The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, completed its sea trials and acceptance inspections two years ago. The ship did very well, with far fewer (about 90 percent fewer) problems (or "material deficiencies") than is usual with the first warship in a class. USS Independence (LCS-2) was laid down by General Dynamics in late 2005 and commissioned in January 2010.

Both LCS designs were supposed to be for ships displacing 2,500 tons, with a full load draft of under 3.3 meters/ten feet (permitting access to very shallow "green" and even "brown" coastal and riverine waters, where most naval operations have taken place in the past generation). Top speed was expected was to be over 80 kilometers with a range of 2,700 kilometers. Basic endurance is 21 days, and final displacement was closer to 3,000 tons.

LCS is currently armed with a 57mm gun, four 12.7mm machine-guns, two 30mm autocannon and a 21 cell SeaRam system for aircraft and missile defense. The RAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles replace Phalanx autocannon. SeaRAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (two kilometers). Last year, the navy decided to equip LCS with a surface launched version of the Griffin air-to-surface missile. The Griffin is an alternative to the Hellfire II, which weighs 48.2 kg (106 pounds) and carries a 9 kg (20 pound) warhead and has a range of 8,000 meters. In contrast, the Griffin weighs only 16 kg (35 pounds), with a 5.9 kg (13 pound) warhead which is larger, in proportion to its size, than the one carried by the larger Hellfire missile. Griffin has a pop-out wings, allowing it to glide, and thus has a longer range (15 kilometers) than Hellfire. UAVs can carry more of the smaller missiles, typically two of them in place of one Hellfire. The surface-launched Griffin weighs about twice as much as the air launched version, because of the addition of a rocket to get it into the air, after which it can glide to the target.

Ultimately, the navy hoped to have between 50 and 60 LCSs by 2014-18, at a cost of $460 million (after the first five.) The USS Freedom ended up costing nearly $600 million, about twice what the first ship in the class was supposed to have cost. The navy believes it has the cost down to under $450 million each as mass production begins.

Apr 8, 2011 By Robert Wall AviationWeek.com

NATO may one day field a wide-area, high-altitude ground surveillance system, but it will not be for the mission or of the scale once envisioned. The status of the Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) program will be discussed this week as NATO officials try to put the effort on a firm path toward the award of a production contract. AGS was born almost two decades ago in the wake of the 1991 Persian Gulf war when a prototype U.S. Air Force Joint Stars aircraft was used to track Iraqi armored columns. In the interim, governments have squabbled over the technical approach—fixed-wing widebodies, narrowbodies, business jets and helicopters have been in the mix—industrial participation and basing plans. Now, as NATO tries to orchestrate a military campaign against Libya, the alliance is once more forced to rely on member states for ground surveillance: in this case, U.S. Air Force E-8C J-Stars and Royal Air Force Sentinel R1 fleets for high-performance radar information. NATO itself remains years away from fielding its own capability.

An artist concept showing the Global Hawk RQ-4B Block 40 configured for the NATO AGS core capability. Photo: Northrop Grumman

March 29, 2011 by Tamir Eshel DEFENSE UPDATE

Northrop Grumman Corporation submitted its final proposal for the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) core capability. NATO AGS system will employ an air segment consisting of six Northrop Grumman Block 40 Global Hawks specially missionized to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to ground, maritime and air commanders, anytime and anywhere in the world. These Global hawks will be equipped with Northrop Grumman’s Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) ground surveillance radar sensor, which will be capable of detecting and tracking moving objects throughout the observed areas, as well as providing radar imagery of target locations and stationary objects.

The primary ground segment component will consist of a number of ground stations in different configurations, such as mobile and transportable configurations, which will provide data link connectivity, data processing and exploitation capabilities, and interfaces for interoperability with Command, Control Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance(C2ISR) systems. The AGS Core ground segment will also include dedicated mission support facilities at the AGS Main Operating Bases (MOB), and ground stations for flight control of the UAVs. The Main Operating Base will be located at Sigonella Air Base, Italy. The Core system will be supplemented by interoperable national airborne stand-off ground surveillance systems from NATO countries, thus forming a system of systems.

NATO AGS program was approved by European heads of state and government as a priority capability initiative at the 2010 Lisbon Summit. In support of the new strategic concept, system will establish a network-enabled sensor system, supporting interoperability with national systems in support of all possible missions, including force protection, border and maritime security, counter- and anti-terrorism, crisis management, peacekeeping and enforcement, and natural disaster relief.

The current proposal is based on refinements introduced by the team to meet NATO requirements. “Our updated proposal offers an affordable, executable program that will provide an operationally relevant system to the Alliance,” said Pat McMahon, sector vice president of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems’ Battle Management & Engagement Systems Division. Northrop Grumman is expecting contract award by July 2011.

NATO embarked on the AGS program in 1995, when the NATO Defence Ministers agreed to develop a pooled NATO asset, consisting of both manned and unmanned platforms, as well as ground control stations in various configurations. The manned platform was to be based on the Airbus A321 commercial airliner, and the unmanned platform on the Global Hawk high altitude long endurance UAV. Both the manned and unmanned platforms were to carry the Transatlantic Cooperative AGS Radar (TCAR). In November 2007, however, due to declining European defense budgets, NATO chose to move forward with a UAV-only solution based on the Global Hawk RQ-4B and the multi-platform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP). With this revision, the number of cooperating nations was reduced from 24 to 14.

NATO AGS is the first international sale of the Block 40 Global Hawk. The ground element, which provides real-time data, intelligence and target identification to commanders within and beyond line of sight, will be wholly produced by the team’s European industry partners, offering the potential for national re-use in other programs as well as direct work in the program for the participating nations. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the program, leading a team which includes companies from each of nations participating in the acquisition.

The program is managed by NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance Management Agency (NAGSMA) and being implemented by the AGS Implementation Office (AGS IO) at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). The agency was established in September 2009 after all participating nations signed the AGS Program Memorandum of Understanding. NAGSMA, was chartered to acquire the NATO-owned and operated core capability, and is responsible for the procurement of the NATO AGS capability until it has reached full operational capability at the NATO AGS main operating base in Italy.

source Cassidian

28/03/11 By Craig Hoyle Flight International

Frustrated by a continued lack of progress with advancing its Talarion unmanned air system programme, EADS company Cassidian has suggested an alternative funding proposal to planned participants France, Germany and Spain. Approval to launch an estimated €3 billion ($4.2 billion) effort for development and production of the Talarion has already slipped by around two years. Cuts in defence spending among European governments mean that getting a green light for a major new programme at this time is unlikely, concedes Cassidian chief executive Stefan Zoller. "Seeing the budget constraints of the nations, we have come up with a stepped approach, where we have proposed to build a prototype to fly at the end of 2013 to 2014," he said during a financial presentation at the company's Unterschleissheim headquarters near Munich on 28 March. "To build this prototype we are asking right now for €300 million: €100 million per nation, spread over three years. That is something that should be manageable, despite the crisis." Zoller declined to detail further terms of the offer, or to reveal any requested deadline for a decision.

24 mars 2011

Rivaux de longue date, notamment pour des contrats d’armements à l’étranger, I’industrie aéronautique israélienne (IAI) et Elbit Systems pourraient s’associer en vue de l’acquisition et du maintien d’un avion d’entrainement destiné aux futurs pilotes de chasse de l’armée israélienne. Ce dernier devrait être choisi dans les prochains mois afin de remplacer les vieux Skyhawks A-4, aujourd’hui inadaptés à l’évolution des technologies aériennes et rangés dans les hangars de Tsahal. Ces appareils, utilisés d’abord par l’US Navy au Viêt-Nam, connurent leur heure de gloire au moment de la guerre de Kippour en 1973. D’après le quotidien économique Globes, Elbit Systems, spécialisé dans les équipements électroniques à usage militaire, et IAI, fleuron de l’industrie de défense israélienne, pourraient très rapidement créer une joint venture. Dans les faits, la société serait financée par l’aviation de Tsahal qui louerait les appareils achetés par Elbit et IAI dans le cadre des programmes de formation de ses cadets. L’alliance Elbit-IAI a déjà été approuvée par Ronit Khan, directrice des autorités antitrust israéliennes. Elle intervient dans un contexte agité pour l’industrie militaire israélienne, alors que se murmure toujours une possible fusion entre IMI (Israel Military Industries), en proie à des difficultés économiques, et le puissant missilier Rafael. De son coté, Elbit Systems a annoncé en février avoir racheté 30% des actions d’Elisra, une société dont IAI est l’actionnaire majoritaire.

2011-03-14 par DCNS

Conformément au planning du programme, la réalisation de l’OPV Gowind se poursuit au sein du centre DCNS de Lorient. La jonction du flotteur ayant été achevée à la fin de la semaine dernière, tous les efforts se concentrent désormais sur le prochain objectif : la mise à flot du navire au cours du printemps. Ce bâtiment est le premier de série d’une gamme conçue pour optimiser les outils de surveillance et d’intervention des marines et gardes-côtes.