Mil-Tech

Feb 23, 2010, post by Artur Nowak

Rolls-Royce snares military helicopter contract

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Rolls-Royce Corp.’s Indianapolis operations have been awarded a multimillion-dollar contract by the U.S. Army to design and develop a digital engine control for the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter.

 

 

 

Specific terms of the deal, which was announced Sunday, were not disclosed.

 

The dual-channel full-authority digital engine control, or FADEC, will draw on the latest Rolls-Royce technology, and will increase functionality, decrease pilot workload and lower cost of operation, the company said in a prepared statement.

 

The Kiowa Warrior is powered by Rolls-Royce’s M250 engine. The helicopter performs scout and light-attack missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Rolls-Royce’s Indianapolis manufacturing facility employs about 4,300—making the British aerospace firm the city’s second-largest manufacturer behind Eli Lilly and Co.

 

The local operation has accumulated several meaty military contracts in recent months.

 

In December, it received a $160.6 million military contract to manufacture 78 turboshaft engines for the U.S. Navy and Air Force helicopters. And in November, it received an $11.1 million contract to make gas turbine engines for the Army’s OH-58D Kiowa reconnaissance helicopters and an $8.5 million contract to provide spare engine parts for the Air Force’s C-130J military-transport aircraft.

Feb 06, 2010, post by awatrobski

Simulators Prepare Soldiers For Real War

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

The Improvised Explosive Device Battle Drill simulator after being hit by a simulated I.E.D. attack during an exercise at Fort Eustis, Va.

 

A Humvee bumps along a dirt road fringed by mountains, their snowy peaks glinting in the sun. Rifle shots crackle from a rocky bluff, signaling a Taliban ambush. Suddenly an explosion rocks the vehicle, tossing it from side to side before it bounces to an uneasy stop, smoke billowing into the cab.

 

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Clinton Atwell wearing 3D glasses in an environment simulator.

 

This is a roadside bombing, Hollywood style. But this is no film set. The Humvee is part of an elaborate simulator that prepares soldiers for one of the most hazardous jobs in Afghanistan today — driving.

 

Training to defend against the Taliban’s most lethal weapon, the improvised explosive device, or I.E.D., can feel a bit like taking a ride at Disney World these days. Or watching a 3-D movie. Or playing an interactive computer game.

 

The simulator is just one example of how the Pentagon is trying to harness the high-tech wizardry of the entertainment industry to counter the low-tech bombs, which have killed more American troops in Afghanistan over the last two years than gunfire.

 

Known as I.E.D. Battle Drill, the system uses amusement-ride hydraulics that can make passengers feel as if they are hitting potholes or buried mines. Screens surrounding the vehicle on three sides display Afghan-like terrain in high-definition video sharp enough to discern rocks on the roadside and leaves on the scrubby bushes.

 

“This is better than anything I can recreate in the field,” informed Maj. Michael Dolge, a Fort Eustis trainer who experienced several bombs attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I think my gunner would have had some unpleasant memories if he rode in it.”
The simulator is just one of several game playing or virtual-reality devices the Defense Department has hustled into operation as I.E.D. casualties have risen.

 

At Fort Bragg, N.C., and Camp Pendleton, Calif., soldiers and Marines have begun training on a program created by the Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California that uses fictional video narratives and a multiplayer computer game.

 

In one video, an insurgent played by an actor demonstrates how I.E.D.’s are built, planted and detonated; in another, an American soldier describes how his team responded to a bomb attack. The session finishes with a 15-minute interactive computer game in which one team tries to avoid getting blown up by the other.

 

In another application of gaming technology, Defense Department programmers working in a strip mall near Fort Monroe, Va., have taken daily intelligence reports, surveillance data and satellite images from Iraq and Afghanistan to produce computer-generated simulations of the latest I.E.D. tactics and technology.

 

The high-quality graphics, which can depict Blackhawk helicopters or sandal-shod insurgents, are generated by a commercially available war-gaming software called Virtual Battle Space 2. Completed simulations are then e-mailed to commanders and intelligence officers around the world.

 

Mark Covey, who oversees the simulations unit, stated many officers were initially skeptical about his simulations until someone compared an insurgent video posted on the Internet to one of his productions depicting the same attack. They were virtually identical.

 

The counter-I.E.D. systems are just one part of a broader trend by the military to use virtual reality, 3-D technology and computer game software to train deploying troops and treat combat-scarred veterans.

 

The firm that helped convert an actor into the creature Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, Motion Reality, has created a 3-D virtual reality training program that simulates small-unit combat missions.

 

Therapists at several military and veterans hospitals are also using a system known as Virtual Iraq to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. The system, based on a computer game called Full Spectrum Warrior, helps patients to re-imagine, with the help of virtual reality goggles and headphones, the sights and sounds of combat experiences as a way of grappling with trauma.

 

The effectiveness of the new technology is still being studied. But some critics warn that computer games and virtual reality systems used for training are only as effective as their software, meaning that programs that underestimate the creativity of the enemy may leave even the best-trained troops with a false sense of mastery.

 

But advocates say the new training systems can be easily updated to reflect changing realities on the ground. And they point to other advantages, including that most systems can be transported to the war front.

 

Trainers say that the I.E.D. Battle Drill’s greatest benefit may be in teaching soldiers to stay alert for unusual details in the landscape that might signal buried bombs or impending ambushes. Those clues could be as obvious as a speeding truck or as subtle as a pile of rocks. Crews that spot those clues and respond are rewarded by moving onto more complex scenarios. Those who do not get blown up.

 

“The best way to defeat an I.E.D is to find it,” informed Master Sgt. David Richardson, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq who now trains soldiers at Fort Eustis.

 

Getting blown up is also instructive, trainers say, because it gives soldiers a taste of disorientation that might help them recover faster from a real attack.

 

“The first reaction is to freeze,” stated Gary Carlberg, training chief for the Joint IED Defeat Organization, or Jieddo, a Pentagon agency. “But if I can build up your threshold through one or two explosions, you won’t freeze and become a target.”

 

The simulator grew out of the kind of alliance between the military and the entertainment industry that has become more common since 9/11.

 

At the behest of Jieddo, Richard Lindheim, a former film studio executive and past director of the Institute for Creative Technologies, recruited a team of experts. Cinematographers invented a high-definition camera capable of seamless 360-degree shots. A veteran sitcom writer plotted the training scenarios. Gaming programmers built those scenarios into videos. And a company that has created rides for Universal Studios and Disney manufactured the equipment.

 

Mr. Carlberg stated: “We’re not going to armor ourselves out of this problem. But if we can, we take the most valuable, flexible resource we have, the human being, and maximize it, that will make a significant difference.”

Nov 30, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

DRS Defense Solutions’ Telemedicine Network Project

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

DRS Defense Solutions, LLC. a wholly-owned subsidiary of DRS Technologies, Inc., announced that its Joint Tele-Medicine Network (JTMN) project team has been recently recognized, receiving first place honors, for outstanding service to American’s Warfighters by the DoD Chief Information Officer/G6.

 

The JTMN team is responsible for the design and installation of the Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) satellite systems installed at military hospitals and clinics throughout Southwest Asia. The systems are used to transmit critical medical data from hospitals and clinics to medical experts for the rapid triage and treatment of patients.

 

This satellite based network gives radiologists time to review x-rays films in advance of patient arrival to higher level medical treatment facilities. With data reaching these facilities in less than 10 minutes, physicians are able to prepare treatment plans for wounded warriors before they arrive.

 

The First Place Team Award was presented October 28, 2009, during the DoD CIO Executive Board Meeting at the Pentagon.

 

The JTMN team consists of key military and government members from the Office of the Surgeon General, PM Defense Wide Transmission Systems, and DRS Technical Services employees collaborating from Falls Church, VA; Mac Dill Air Force Base, FL; Fort Monmouth, NJ; Germany; Iraq; Kuwait and Afghanistan. The team has been deployed throughout Southwest Asia since 2003.

Nov 18, 2009, post by awatrobski

U.S. Army And U.S.A.F. Urgently Need More UAV Pilots.

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

While the U.S. Air Force struggles to train 400 UAV operators a year, the U.S. Army is training 1,400, and is increasing that to 2,300 by next year.

 

Most of the army operators use the small (five pound) Raven UAV, which delivers platoons, companies, and vehicle convoys with aerial reconnaissance. Interestingly, UAV operators spend about 1,200 hours a year controlling UAVs in the air, versus 450 hours for army helicopter pilots and even less for air force pilots in the combat zone. Most army UAV operators are enlisted troops, while all USAF operators are officers. The Raven training lasts approximately 80 hours, but this tiny UAV was crafted for ease of use. It takes about five times longer to train operators for larger UAVs such as the Shadow and Predator.

 

The U.S. Army also has over a hundred larger UAVs, most of them the 350 pound RQ-7B Shadow 200s and 1,600 pound MQ-5A Hunters.

 

The U.S. Army has also started to receive the new 1.5 ton Sky Warrior MQ-1C UAVs. The MQ-1Cs are slightly larger Predators, and are meant to replace the aging Shadows and Hunters. The big difference is that Sky Warrior can carry weapons (such as Hellfire missiles.)

 

In addition, for the last two years, the U.S. Army has been using 20, one ton, Predator type UAVs (called Sky Warrior Alpha) from the same firm that produces the Predator and Sky Warrior. “Alphas” were used in Iraq for counter-IED (roadside and suicide bombs) work. The Sky Warrior Alpha can carry 450 pounds of sensors and 300 pounds of weapons, and they have been used to fire Hellfire missiles. Sky Warrior Alpha is, officially, the I-Gnat ER, which is based on a predecessor design of the Predator, the Gnat-750, and an improved model, the I-Gnat (which has been in use since 1989). The I-Gnat ER/ Sky Warrior Alpha looks like a Predator, but isn’t — in terms of design and capabilities, they are cousins.

 

The MQ-1C Sky Warrior weighs 1.5 tons, carries 300 pounds of internal sensors, and up to 500 pounds of external sensors or weapons. This UAV has an endurance of up to 36 hours and a top speed of 270 kilometers an hour. Sky Warrior has a wingspan of 56 feet and is 28 feet long. The Sky Warrior can land and take off automatically, and can carry four Hellfire missiles (compared to two on the Predator). The original MQ-1 Predator is a one ton aircraft that is 27 feet long with a wingspan of 49 feet. It has two hard points, which usually carry one (107 pound) Hellfire each. Each hard point can also carry a Stinger air-to-air missile. Max speed of the Predator is 215 kilometers an hour, max cruising speed is 160 kilometers an hour. Max altitude is 25,000 feet. Typical sorties are 12-20 hours each. A Sky Warrior company has 115 troops, 12 Sky Warrior UAVs and five ground stations.

 

As its model number (MQ-1C) indicates, Sky Warrior is a Predator (MQ-1) replacement. The U.S. Air Force plans to replace its MQ-1s with MQ-1Cs. Sky Warrior began mass production this year, and the U.S. Army (which paid for development) wants more than 500 of these craft, initially. So far, the attrition rate of Predators has been over five percent a year. Unless that can be brought down, few Predators will last more than a decade, and the MQ-1C will gradually replace it. Most of the losses are due to mechanical, electronic, software or operator failure. Never have so many UAVs been used so extensively, and intensively, in combat.

 

There is a third member of the Predator family, that is only used by the U.S.A.F. The MQ-9 Reaper is a 4.7 ton, 36 foot long aircraft with a 66 foot wingspan that looks like the MQ-1. It has six hard points, and can carry 1,500 pounds of weapons. These include Hellfire missiles (up to eight), two Sidewinder or two AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, two Maverick missiles, or two 500 pound smart bombs (laser or GPS guided.) Max speed is 400 kilometers an hour, and max endurance is 15 hours. The Reaper is considered a combat aircraft, to replace F-16s or A-10s.

Aug 14, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

US army embraces robot technology

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

ROBOTS in the sky and on the ground are transforming warfare, and the US military is rushing to recruit the new warriors that never sleep and never bleed.

 

The latest robotics were on display at an industry show this week at a naval airfield in Maryland, with a pilotless helicopter buzzing overhead and a “Wall-E” look-alike robot on the ground craning its neck to peer into a window.

 

The chopper, the MQ-8B Fire Scout, is no tentative experiment and later this year will be operating from a naval frigate, the USS McInerney, to help track drug traffickers in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Navy officers said.

 

The rugged little robot searching an enemy building is called a Pakbot, which can climb over rocks with tank treads, pick up an explosive with its mechanical arm and dismantle it while a soldier directs the machine from a safe distance.

 

There are already 2,500 of them on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a lighter version weighing six kilograms has arrived that can be carried in a backpack, according to iRobot, the same company that sells a robot vaccum to civilians, the Roomba.

 

Monday’s demonstration of robotic wonders was organised by defence contractors and the US Navy, which says it wants to lead the American military into a new age where tedious or high-risk jobs are handed over to robots.

 

“I think we’re at the beginning of an unmanned revolution,” Gary Kessler, who oversees unmanned aviation programs for the US Navy and Marines, told AFP.

 

“We’re spending billions of dollars on unmanned systems.”

Kessler and other Pentagon officials compare the robots to the introduction of the aircraft or the tank, a new technology that dramatically changes strategy and tactics.

 

Robots or “unmanned systems” are now deployed by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, spying from the sky for hours on end, searching for booby-traps and firing lethal missiles without putting US soldiers at risk.

 

The use of robotics in the military has exploded in the past several years as technology has advanced while Washington faced a new kind of enemy that required patient, precise surveillance.

 

In 2003, the US military had almost no robots in its arsenal but now has 7,000 unmanned aircraft and at least 10,000 ground vehicles.

 

The US Air Force, which initially resisted the idea of pilotless planes, said it trains more operators for unmanned aircraft than pilots for its fighter jets and bombers.

 

Peter Singer, author of “Wired for War,” writes that future wars may see tens of thousands of unmanned vehicles in action, possibly facing off against fleets of enemy robots.

 

Unlike expensive weapons from the Cold War-era, robotic vehicles are not off-limits to countries with modest defence budgets and dozens of governments are investing in unmanned programs.

 

At the trade show, military officers from the United States, Chile, Australia, Saudi Arabia and India listened to defence contractors promote their robotic vehicles, including a tiny helicopter about two-feet long and L3′s Mobius – a nimble medium-sized drone that reaches speeds of up to 215 knots.

 

The technology may sometimes resemble something out of “Star Wars” or a toy shop, but the robots determine matters of life and death on the battlefront.

 

In the fight against al-Qaeda, drones are Washington’s favoured weapon.

Predator and Reaper aircraft, armed with precision-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles, regularly carry out strikes in Pakistan’s northwest tribal area, causing an unknown number of civilian casualties.

 

Last week, a drone strike is believed to have have killed the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

 

The unmanned aircraft in the US military’s inventory range from small Ravens, that can be tossed into the air to see over the next hill, to the giant Global Hawk, a 15-metre-long spy plane that can fly at high altitude for up to 35 hours.

 

The drones and ground vehicles are often operated using joysticks or consoles familiar to a younger generation raised on video games.

 

“Soldiers these days have a lot of experience playing video games when they’re growing up, and they’re really familiar with these controls. So this really reduces the training time on these types of unmanned vehicles,” said Charlie Vaida of iRobot, which makes a game console for the Pakbot.

 

Amid plans for unmanned bomber jets for aircraft carriers, the onslaught of drones could eventually render fighter aces a relic of history.

 

Military officers insist the robots are a complement and not a substitute for traditional aircraft, and pose no threat to the careers of their fellow pilots.

 

“I think they understand we’re not going to replace them,” said Captain Tim Dunnigan, a navy chopper pilot. “This is going to augment them.”

Jul 26, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

New Report Just Published Military Communications & COTS 2009-2019: A Market in Retreat?

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Adoption of new commercially-available platforms and technologies has fuelled a global military communications industry worth more than $15bn per annum. Prime beneficiaries of this trend have included suppliers of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products and services to the military. Given the onset of the global economic recession in late 2008 and new potential constraints on defence budgets across the world, this report revisits the military communications market to ask whether the recent growth trend will be sustainable over the next decade. Is the global military communications market now a market in retreat?

 

This new defence report – Military Communications & COTS 2009-2019 – discusses those and other important matters in depth. The author of this report believes that pockets of opportunity within the global military communications market will remain very strong, despite the many constraining economic forces likely to impact upon military budgets during our forecast period to 2019. We believe that exposure to the right procurement programmes will therefore be critical to contractors’ success in the challenging period ahead. We also identify the key areas of opportunity for COTS providers in the airborne, open architecture, UAV, satellite, tactical radio, maritime, embedded and wireless broadband arenas, among others.

 

Why you should buy this report:

• Global military communications market sales forecasts, 2009-2019

• US military communications market sales forecasts, 2009-2019

• Up-to-date defence sales forecasts for 11 leading military markets: the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, China and India (including post 2009-10 fiscal year US defence budget announcement analysis)

• Expert, post-credit crisis opinion from industry specialists in military communications and related sectors, including full interview transcripts from our original survey

• A profile of the major purchasers of COTS military communications equipment and services in these 11 leading military markets

• A profile of 100 major vendors of military communications equipment and services

• An examination of the key drivers and restraints for the global military communications market, including SWOT analysis

• In-depth analysis of the key COTS technologies involved in military communications and our view of their future prospects.

 

Overview

The importance of military communications

 

Today’s global military is inseparably bound up with technology, and with communications technology in particular. ‘Military communications’ encompasses a vast array of technologies and submarkets, including radios, satellites, software and embedded computer components. Communications systems on the battlefield are now rightly regarded as an essential component of mission success. For soldiers on the ground, radios and other communications devices are lifelines. They are needed to summon fire support or seek casualty evacuation, or simply to confirm their location or receive new instructions. For commanders in nearby command posts or headquartered hundreds of miles away, communications are vital for giving orders or simply pinpointing the location of their forces.

 

Opportunities for providers of milcoms technology

Although providers of products and solutions in this field must be aware that the high cost of platforms, coupled with the global financial crisis, may limit demand in the near future, the market for military communications is also likely to be supported by a number of powerful demand drivers, notably the need for allied information advantages in large-scale, operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Key content of the report

This new report – Military Communications & COTS 2009: A Market in Retreat? – discusses the present and future market for military communications. We critically examine the hypothesis that military communications spending may witness a retreat from the very high growth rates seen this decade.

 

Order this report today to receive the information you need.

 

Our report analyses the market through a comprehensive review of available information. We provide the information that you need to understand the military communications and COTS market. In addition to relevant sales forecasts, the report highlights important contemporary issues, including the key commercial drivers and restraints of the milcoms market. Sources used include interviews with industry experts, industrial news, policy documents and defence industry research. The author oh this report also applies financial forecasting, qualitative analyses and an assessment of currently-unmet needs to provide a comprehensive market-based report with detailed analysis and informed opinion.

 

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary

2 The Military Communications Market and COTS

2.1 Military Communications – an Introduction

2.2 COTS – New Solutions for Traditional Military Demands

2.3 Commercial Communications Technologies for Defence

2.4 Focus and Scope of Military Communications and COTS 2009

3 Key Trends and Issues in COTS

3.1 Key Trends

3.1.1 Communications On-The-Move

3.1.2 Enhanced Communications Essential to Future Systems

3.1.3 Communications Also Essential in Asymmetric Warfare

3.1.4 Present Conflicts Put Pressure on Legacy Communications

3.1.5 Staying the Course in Communications Upgrades

3.2 Key COTS End-User Requirements 

3.3 Benefits and Risks of COTS Products to Defence Agencies

3.3.1 Technological Challenges

3.3.2 Security Challenges

3.3.3 Programme Challenges

3.3.4 Perceptual Challenges

3.3.5 Conclusion

3.4 A Note on World Defence Spending

4 Communications Platforms and COTS Solutions

4.1 Origins of COTS: William Perry and the ‘Mandate for Change’

4.2 Definition of COTS

4.3 Relevant COTS Technologies

4.3.1 3G

4.3.2 WiMax

4.3.3 Software-Defined Radio (SDR)

4.3.4 Software for Military Communications

4.4 Military and Communications Industry Collaboration

4.4.1 Commercial Design

4.5 Range of Military Application for COTS Solutions

4.5.1 Ground, Mobile

4.5.2 Ground, Fixed

4.5.3 Airborne (Aircraft and UAV-Mounted)

4.5.4 Space (Satellite-Based)

4.5.5 Maritime

4.6 Conclusion

5 Forecasts: US & Global Military Communications

5.1 Summary of Key Forecasts

5.2 Global Defence Spending, 2010-2019

5.3 US Defence Spending Powers the Global Market

5.4 US CET&I Spending

5.5 Forecast Analysis

5.6 Upside Risks to our Forecasts

5.7 Downside Risks to our Forecasts

5.8 Key Drivers of the Military Communications Market

5.9 Key Constraints on the Military Communications Market

5.10 SWOT Analysis

6 The United States Market

6.1 The United States Market: Overview

6.2 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Programmes in the US

6.2.1 Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals  

6.2.2 Land Warrior

6.2.3 Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI)

6.2.4 Global Information Grid

6.2.5 Software Radio: Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)

6.2.5.1 Waveform Solution

6.2.5.2 Origins

6.2.5.3 Problems and Restructuring

6.2.5.4 COTS Solutions

6.2.5.5 JTRS and Future Combat System (FCS)

6.2.5.6 Radios for Individual Soldiers

6.2.6 WiMax Trials

6.2.7 Tapping 3G

6.2.8 Satellites

6.2.8.1 Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)

6.2.8.2 Transformational Satellite (TSAT)

6.2.8.3 Wideband Global Satcom (WGS)

6.2.9 Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

6.3 The US Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

7 The UK Market

7.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in the UK

7.1.1 Bowman

7.1.2 Skynet

7.1.3 Falcon

7.2 The UK Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

8 The French Market

8.1 Status and Direction of Key Projects in France

8.1.1 Syracuse III

8.1.2 Athena

8.1.3 Small Personal Radio in Felin

8.2 The French Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

9 The German Market

9.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Germany

9.1.1 Tetrapol BW

9.1.2 idZ Infantry of the Future

9.1.3 Project Hercules

9.2 The German Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

10 The Italian Market

10.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Programmes in Italy

10.1.1 Sicral

10.1.2 Soldato Futuro IPR

10.2 The Italian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

11 The Canadian Market

11.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Canada

11.1.1 HCTCN Experimental Tactical Radio System

11.1.2 JTRS Involvement

11.1.2.1 CRC Scari

11.1.2.2 Lytech Small Form Factor SDR

11.1.2.3 Spectrum Signal Processing COTS SDR

11.1.2.4 DRDC and SDR Forum 

11.1.3 AEHF

11.2 The Canadian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

12 The Australian Market

12.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Australia

12.1.1 High Frequency Modernisation Project

12.1.2 Battle Space Communications Land (BSC(L))

12.1.3 Maritime Communications and Information Management Architecture Modernisation

12.2 The Australian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

13 The Japanese Market

13.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Japan

13.1.1 Integrated Radio

13.1.2 Regimental Command and Control System (ReCS)

13.2 Use of COTS Components in Japan

13.3 The Japanese Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

14 The Russian Market

14.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communication Projects in Russia

14.1.1 SPM-Atlas (M-539) Cell Phone

14.1.2 Kosmos Satellite

14.2 The Russian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

15 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) Market

15.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in the PRC

15.2 Legacy, Present and Future Use of COTS Communications Components

15.3 The PRC Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

16 The Indian Market

16.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in India

16.1.1 Indian Army Tactical Communications System

16.2 The Indian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

17 100 Key Vendors of Military Communications Products and Services

In this chapter, the author of the report builds a representative profile of the international military communications market by identifying 100 players worldwide. Our survey reveals a large, dynamic mosaic of providers. Smaller, specialists firms that have developed niche technology and manufacturers of embedded COTS boards and integrated systems sit alongside established multinational titans and household names. We encounter veterans-led businesses, IT firms, telcos and specialists in all major fields of military communications, from ‘traditional’ communication forms such as radio and antenna manufacturers to satellite companies and SDR leaders.

18 Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.1 United States: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.1.1 Department of Defense (DoD)

18.1.2 Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa)

18.1.2.1 Control-Based Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking (CBMANet)

18.1.2.2 Connectionless Networks (CN)

18.1.2.3 Disruption Tolerant Networks (DTN)

18.1.2.4 Future Combat Systems Communications (FCS-C)

18.1.2.5 Mobile Network (MIMO)

18.1.2.6 Networking in Extreme Environments (Netex)

18.1.2.7 Optical & Radio Frequency (RF) Combined Link Experiment (Orcle)

18.1.2.8 The Next Generation Programme (XG)

18.1.2.9 Ultra-broadband Optical Arbitrary Waveform Generation

18.1.2.10 Power Aware Computing and Communication (PAC/C)

18.1.2.11 Analogue Optical Signal Processing (AOSP)

18.1.2.12 Technology for Frequency Agile Digitally Synthesised Transmitters (Tfast)

18.1.2.13 Ultra-Wideband Multifunction Photonic Transmit/Receive Module (Ultra-T/R)

18.1.2.14 Compact Lasers for Coherent Communications, Imaging and Targeting (CCIT)

17.1.2.15 Ultra Wideband Array Antennas (Uwbaa)

18.1.3 Defence Information Systems Agency (DISA)

18.1.4 Defence Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

18.1.5 Project Manager, Tactical Radio Communications Systems (PM TRCS)

18.1.6 JTRS Joint Programme Executive Office (JPEO)

18.1.7 Milsatcom Joint Programme Office (MJPO)

18.2 United Kingdom: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.2.1 MoD

18.2.2 The Defence Procurement Agency (DPA)

18.2.3 Air Command & Control Systems (ACCS) Integrated Project Team (IPT)

18.2.4 Bowman and Tactical Communications and Information Systems (BATCIS) IPT

18.2.5 Command Support Information Systems (CSIS) IPT

18.2.6 Identification and Communication Equipment (ICE)   IPT

18.2.7 Satellite Communications (Satcom) IPT

18.2.8 Strategic Terrestrial Radio Systems (STRS) IPT

18.2.9 Theatre and Formation Communication Systems (TFCS) IPT

18.2.10 Defence Communication Services Agency

18.3 France: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.3.1 MoD

18.3.2 DGA

18.4 Germany: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.4.1 Federal Ministry of Defence (FMoD)

18.4.2 The Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB)

18.4.3 The Federal Office for Information Management and IT of the German Federal Armed Forces (IT AmtBw)

18.5 Italy: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.5.1 Italian MoD

18.5.2 Teledife (Director’s Office of Information Science and Advanced Technologies)

18.6 Canada: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.6.1 The Department of National Defence (DND)

18.6.2 Defence R&D Canada (DRDC)

18.6.3 Assistant Defence Minister (Materiel) ADM

18.7 Australia: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.7.1 Department of Defence

18.7.2 The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO)

18.7.3 The Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)

18.8 Japan: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.8.1 Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI)

18.8.2 Research Centre Two

18.9 Russia: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.9.1 Ministry of National Defence

18.9.2 Rosoboronexport

18.10 India: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.10.1 The Ministry of Defence

18.10.2 Department of Defence Production

18.11 PRC: Key Purchasers and Vendors of Military Communications Products and Services

18.11.1 Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services in the PRC

18.11.1.1 Ministry of National Defence

18.11.1.2 Central Military Commission (CMC)

18.11.1.3 Commission on Science, Technology and National Defence Industry (Costind)

18.11.1.4 General Armaments Department (GAD)

18.11.2 Key Vendors of Military Communications Products and Services in the PRC

18.11.2.1 Ministry of Information Industry (MII)

18.11.2.2 China Electronics Technology Group Corp. (CETC)

18.11.2.3 China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC)

18.11.2.4 China Satellite Communications Corporation (ChinaSatcom)

18.11.2.5 Huanyu Mobile Technology Co.

18.11.2.6 Huawei Technologies

18.11.2.7 ZTE Corporation

19 Expert Views

19.1 Dr Sally Baron, Special Advisor to the Defense Commercial Vendors Coalition (DCVC, Washington DC), United States

19.1.1 Need to Streamline US Procurement Process; Bureaucracy Moving Far Too Slowly

19.1.2 DCVC: Companies With Superior Technologies Screaming to be Heard; in High-Tech, Largest Cost is Usually Development

19.1.3 Pentagon Insists On an Optimistic Three-Year Acquisition Cycle That Precludes Best Technologies Getting to the Field

19.1.4 System Has Outlived its Usefulness; Congress Needs to Work With DoD to Streamline Processes

19.1.5 Positive Outlook for COTS Companies; New Generation Will Better Embrace COTS

19.1.6 Identifying a Problem is Not the Same as Fixing it

19.1.7 Troops Must Have the Best Technologies; Our Adversaries are Not Slowed by Bureaucracies

19.1.8 COTS, When Available, Should be Used, ‘Unique’ Items Becoming Fewer

19.2 Peter Cavill, General Manager, Military & Aerospace, GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms, UK

19.2.1 Recession Alone Unlikely to See Diminution in Conflict; Technology Moving Forward at Breathtaking Pace

19.2.2 GE Fanuc Investing Heavily in Product Range; Focusing on Primes; Rugged Systems Expertise Valued

19.2.3 Growth Abroad Unlikely to Compensate for Potential Decline in US Defence Spending

19.2.4 Three Key Trends: UAVs, Sensor-Acquired Data and Embedded Training

19.2.5 Significant Further Defence Sector Consolidation Unlikely, at Least Near Term

19.2.6 COTS Opportunity Still an Exciting One; VMEbus, VXS, VPX, CompactPCI

19.2.7 VPX Standard Promises to be Central to Military; New Challenge to Determine Which Processors to Support

19.2.8 Need to Back Technology Winners and Select Right Suppliers

19.2.9 Military Still Winning From COTS

19.3 Kim Walkling, Partner, Simmons & Simmons, London

19.3.1 Affordability and Funding Now Critical Issues in Defence; Strategic Programmes Receiving Support

19.3.2 Consolidation Within the Sector a Possibility; Valuation Will Be a Challenge

19.3.3 EU ‘Common Market’ for Defence May Be Difficult to Achieve

19.3.4 Critical Programmes Should Still Succeed

19.3.5 Current Trends: Soul Searching; Training Projects Look Firm; Classic PFI/PPP Structure May Not Work on Larger Projects; UAE Showing Strength

20 Report Conclusions

20.1 Summary of Key Forecasts

20.2 Revised General Outlook for Military Communications 2010-2019

20.3 Key Areas of Opportunity for COTS Providers, 2010-2019

20.4 Closing Remarks

List of Tables

Table 5.1 US Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Table 5.2 Global Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Table 6.1 US Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 7.1 UK Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 8.1 French Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 9.1 German Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 10.1 Italian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 11.1 Canadian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 12.1 Australian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 13.1 Japanese Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 14.1 Russian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 15.1 PRC Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 16.1 Indian Defence Spending 2004-2019

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 The World’s Top 20 Defence Spenders, 2008

Figure 3.2 The World’s Top 5 Defence Spenders, 2008

Figure 5.1 US Military Spending vs the World ($bn)

Figure 5.2 2009 Department of Defense Budget Request

Figure 5.3 US Defence Spending, 2004-2019

Figure 5.4 US CET&I Spending, 2006-2019

Figure 5.5 US Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Figure 5.6 Global Military Communications Forecasts, 2010-2019

Figure 6.1 US Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 6.2 US Defence Spending Historically

Figure 6.3 US Defence Spending Since 2001

Figure 6.4 US Defence Spending as a Percentage of GDP

Figure 7.1 UK Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 8.1 French Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 9.1 German Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 10.1 Italian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 11.1 Canadian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 12.1 Australian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 13.1 Japanese Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 14.1 Russian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 15.1 PRC Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 16.1 Indian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 20.1 Global Military Communications Forecasts, 2010-2019

Figure 20.2 US CET&I Spending, 2006-2019

Figure 20.3 US Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Companies, Organisations and Programmes Mentioned in the Report

Absolute Analysis (US)

Aculab (US)

Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Satellite System (Canada)

Advent Communications (US)

Agilent Technologies (US)

Air Command & Control Systems (ACCS) Integrated Project Team (IPT) (UK)

Airbus Group

Aitech Rugged Group Inc (US)

Alcatel Alenia Space (Thales Alenia Space)

Altera (US)

Americom Government Services, Inc. (US)

Analogue Optical Signal Processing (AOSP) (US)

Anritsu Company (US)

Assistant Defence Minister (Materiel) (Canada)

Association of Defence & Security Professional Electronics Industries (France)

Association of French Aerospace Companies (Gifas)

Association of Land Defence Equipment Industries (Gicat) (France)

Association of Naval Construction and Weapons Industries (Gican) (France)

ATDI (UK)

Athena Programme (France)

Atlas Research and Development Centre (Russia)

Australian Defence Force

Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN)

Avtec (US)

BAE Systems (US / Multinational)

Battle Space Communications Land (BSC(L)) (Australia)

BelAir Networks (US)

Bernier (France)

Bharat Dynamics Ltd (India)

Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (India)

Bharat Electronics (India)

Bharat Electronics Ltd (India)

Boeing (US / Multinational)

Boeing Australia (Australia)

Boeing Satellite Systems

Bowman (UK)

Bowman and Tactical Communications and             Information Systems (BATCIS) IPT (UK)

BT (British Telecom) (UK)

Canada First programme

CC Ploenzke (Germany)

Central Military Commission (CMC) (RC)

Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) (France)

Chief Information Officer Group (CIOG) (Australia)

China Electronics Technology Group Corp (CETC) (PRC)

China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC) (PRC)

China Satellite Communications Corporation (ChinaSatcom) (PRC)

Cisco Systems (US / Multinational)

Cobham (UK)

Cogent Defence & Security Networks (UK)

Command Support Information Systems (CSIS) IPT (UK)

Commission on Science, Technology and National Defence Industry (Costind) (PRC)

Communications & Power Industries (US)

Communications et Systemes (CS) (France)

Communications Research Centre Canada (CRC)

Communications-Electronics             Research, Development and Engineering Center [US Army] (Cerdec)

Compact Lasers for Coherent Communications, Imaging and Targeting (CCIT) (US)

Computer Sciences Corporation (US)

Connectionless Networks (CN) (US)

Control-Based Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking (CBMANet) (US)

COTS Journal (US)

Curtiss-Wright (US)

Dalnyaya Radiosvyaz Holding Company (Russia)

Data Link Solutions (DLS) (US)

Datamat (Italy)

DataPath (US)

Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) (US)

Defence Communication Services Agency (UK)

Defence Contract Management Agency (DCMA) (US)

Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) (UK)

Defence Fixed Telecommunications System for the MoD (UK)

Defence Industries Council (Cidef) (France)

Defence Information Systems Agency (DISA) (US)

Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) (Australia)

Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC)

Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) (Australia)

Defence Spectrum Strategic Plan (ADSSP)

Defense Commercial Vendors Coalition (US)

Department of Defense (US)

Department of National Defence (DND) (Canada)

Dicon Fiberoptics Inc (US)

Directorate for Cooperation and Industrial Affairs (DGA) (France)

Disruption Tolerant Networks (DTN) (US)

DRS Technologies (US)

E&E Enterprises (US)

EADS (Europe / Multinational)

EADS Astrium (UK)

EADS Deutschland GmbH (Germany)

EADS DS (Germany)

EFJohnson Company (US)

ELCON Systemtechnik (Germany)

ELG (France)

EM Solutions Pty Ltd (Australia)

Emrise Corporation (US)

EMS Technologies (US)

Ericsson (Sweden)

Ericsson Federal Inc. (US)

Falcon (UK)

Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-  Sight Terminals (FAB-T) (US)

Federal Ministry of Defence (FMoD) (Germany)

Federal Office for Information Management and IT of the German Federal Armed Forces (IT AmtBw) (Germany)

Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement (Germany)

Felin (France)

Finmeccanica (Italy)

FSB Communications Security Centre (Russia)

Fujitsu (Japan)

Future Combat Systems (US)

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) project (UK)

Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd (India)

GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms (US / Japan)

General Armaments Department (GAD) (PRC)

General Dynamics C4 Systems (US)

General Dynamics Canada (Canada)

General Dynamics Decision Systems (UK)

General Dynamics Land Systems (US)

General pour l’Armement (DGA) (France)

Global Information Grid (US)

Goa Shipyard Ltd (India)

Guiana Space Centre

Harris Corp. (US)

Harris Systems (UK)

High Capacity Tactical Communications Network (HCTCN) (Canada)

High Frequency Modernisation Project (Australia)

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (India)

Huanyu Mobile Technology Co. (PRC)

Huawei Technologies (PRC)

Hughes (US)

IBM (US / Multinational)

Identification and Communication Equipment (ICE) IPT (UK)

Indian Army Tactical Communications System

Intelsat General Corporation (US)

Inter-Digital (US)

International Communications Group (US)

Italian MoD

ITT Communications Systems (US)

JSC (Joint-Stock Company) Relero (Russia)

JTRS Joint Programme Executive Office (JPEO) (US)

Kaiser Electro-Optics Inc

Kosmos Satellite (Russia)

L-3 Communications (US)

Land Warrior (US)

Lockheed Martin (US)

Luneberg Antennas (France)

Maritime Communications and Information Management Architecture Modernisation (Australia)

Mayflower Communications (US)

Mazagon Dock Ltd (India)

Mercury Computer Systems (MCS) (US)

Milsatcom Joint Programme Office (MJPO) (US)

Ministry of Defence (India)

Ministry of Defence (UK)

Ministry of Information Industry (MII) (PRC)

Ministry of National Defence (Russia)

Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd (India)

Mobilcom (Germany)

Mobile Network (MIMO) (US)

Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) (US)

Modernised High Frequency Communications System (MHFCS) (Australia)

Motorola (US)

National Command Authority (US)

Nato

Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) (US)

NEC (Japan)

Networking in Extreme Environments (Netex) (US)

Nokia (Finland / Multinational)

Northrop Grumman (US)

Omega Training Group

Optical & Radio Frequency (RF) Combined Link Experiment (Orcle) (US)

Pacific Star Communication (PacStar) (US)

Paradigm Secure Communications (UK)

People’s Liberation Army (PLA)

Power Aware Computing and Communication (PAC/C) (US)

PrismTech Solutions Americas (US)

Proactive Communications Inc (US)

Project Hercules

Project Manager, Tactical Radio Communications Systems (PM TRCS) (US)

QinetiQ (UK)

Quintech Electronics (US)

Racal Acoustics (UK)

Radio Frequency Systems Program Office (Australia)

Raytheon (US)

Regimental Command and Control System (ReCS) (Japan)

Richelieu Committee (France)

Rivulet Communications (US)

Rockwell Collins (US)

Rosoboronexport (Russia)

Royal Australian Navy (RAN)

SAAB Defence, Aviation & Space (Sweden / Multinational)

Saft (Germany)

Sagem Defense Securite (France)

SAIC (US / Multinational)

Samsung (Korea / Multinational)

Satellite Communications (Satcom) IPT (UK)

Satellite, Radio-Relay and Tropospheric Communication (STARS) Consortium (Russia)

Secure Communication Systems (US)

Segovia (US)

Selenia Communications (Italy)

Selex Communications (Italy)

Senate Armed Services Committee (US)

Short Term Strategic Air-Lift (STSA)

Sicral (Italy)

Siemens (Germany)

Simmons & Simmons (UK)

Sitab consortium (Italy)

Skynet (UK)

Spectrum Signal Processing (Canada)

Spectrum Signal Processing (Canada)

State Council Information Office of China

Strategic Terrestrial Radio Systems (STRS) IPT (UK)

Stratos (UK)

Syracuse III (France)

Tactical Air Control Party Modernization (TACP-M) programme (US)

Tactical Radio System (US)

Tadiran Communications (US)

Tata Group (India

Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI) (Japan)

Technology for Frequency Agile Digitally Synthesised Transmitters (Tfast) (US)

Teledife (Director’s Office of   Information Science and Advanced Technologies) (Italy)

Telespazio (Italy)

Tenix Defence (Australia)

Thales (France)

Thales Alenia Space (France)

Thales Australia

Thales Communications (US)

The Next Generation Programme (XG) (US)

Theatre and Formation Communication Systems (TFCS) IPT (UK)

Transformational Satellite (TSAT)

T-Systems (Germany)

Ultra Electronics (Canada)

Ultra Wideband Array Antennas (Uwbaa) (US)

Ultra-broadband Optical Arbitrary Waveform Generation (US)

Ultra-Wideband Multifunction Photonic Transmit/Receive Module (Ultra-T/R) (US)

United Kingdom Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS)

ViaSat (US)

VMETRO (Norway)

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) (US)

Wideband Gapfiller Satellite (US)

Wideband Global Satcom (WGS)

ZTE Corporation (PRC)

Jul 15, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

Future Food for Future Warriors

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

The Defense Department’s Combat Feeding program at the U.S. Army Soldier System Center in Natick, Mass., is a “one-stop shop for all combat-rations development, field food-service equipment and total combat feeding systems,” according to the Defense Department’s combat-feeding director.
Gerald Darsch said the joint-service program is an effort to provide not only the appropriate types and distribution of food needed by the military services, but also to supply food products to astronauts at the International Space Station.

 

Combat rations and their distribution have improved considerably over the last five to seven years, Darsch said. The Combat Feeding program elicits “what soldiers like to eat and what they don’t like to eat. All of the rations are soldier requested, soldier tested, soldier approved.”

 

When servicemembers ask for a certain food item, such as Spanish rice or Thai chicken, food specialists develop recipes that will meet the request.

 

Test panels are randomly selected to evaluate recipes during development. Once a recipe is finished, it is field tested with soldiers to ensure the goal is met.

 

One type of ration, the Meal, Ready-to-Eat, or MRE, is currently used by the military to sustain individuals in the field until an organized food facility is established. At present, mobile troops, who may not have much time to eat, take out only certain food components from the MRE rations. “They leave up to 50 percent of the unused portion behind, only to be thrown away,” Darsch noted.

 

The prototype “First Strike” ration program provides highly mobile ground troops with total eat-on-the-move capability. He said the idea is to provide a single ration per day containing only food items that are easy to use and consume.

 

Recently, both the Marines and Army soldiers have requested First Strike rations developed by the Combat Feeding program.

 

“The Marines have asked for these rations to use in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Darsch said. “(The Army’s) 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq has also requested to try these rations for their soldiers.” Both services said it would provide a capability they really don’t have, he added.

 

Darsch said this ration package includes a pocket sandwich with a three-year shelf life at room temperature, developed by the Army Soldier Center. This sandwich is a good idea for those who can’t take a microwave or refrigerator out in the field, he added.
“We put three zip-lock bags in with the rations, so the person can break it up into three separate meals and easily store unused portions in the uniform pockets, wherever is most comfortable and fits the best,” he explained. “The beverage mix included with the rations is in a flexible package so you can reconstitute it right in the package and consume it directly from the package.”

 

Tube food, another type of ration, has been provided for the Air Force’s U-2 long-range surveillance aircraft pilots during their reconnaissance flights. According to Air Force officials, the U-2 is the most difficult aircraft to fly because of its unusually challenging takeoff and landing characteristics. Due to its high-altitude mission, pilots must wear full pressure suits.

 

The Combat Feeding program, in a joint effort with the Air Force Research Lab, developed two foods that actually enhance the pilots’ cognitive performance.

 

After the pilots have been flying their aircraft for a long period of time, they can become lethargic and sluggish when they try to land. Darsch explained that adding a certain naturally occurring food ingredient to the tube foods ensures a safe landing.

 

The Natick research center also has launched a robust program to upgrade food- distribution systems for the Navy fleet. Darsch described how they recently used a new modular process to install a piece of food-distribution equipment on two Los Angeles-class submarines.

 

In the past, crewmembers would have had to cut up the equipment deckside and lower in the pieces one at a time through a 30-inch hatch and reassemble all of those pieces down in the galley, he said. This old process required up to 500 man-hours. And once everything was put back together, it didn’t always work or didn’t work as well as intended.

 

The Combat Feeding program worked with a commercial company to come up with equipment designed and built in modules.

 

“The new idea is to lower the modules down through the hatch and then put the pieces together again, like LEGOs, in the galley,” Darsch said. “This now reduces the 500 man-hours down to a possible less than 75 man-hours to complete this task. And now, everything works the way it is supposed to work.”

 

The bottom line, he concluded, is that the Combat Feeding program covers the gamut of everything required for feeding the armed forces “from deep sea to deep space.”

Jul 14, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

USAF slammed for pranging Predators on manual

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

A senior Pentagon official has delivered a stinging attack on the US Air Force, saying that its philosophy of using fully qualified human pilots to handle unmanned aircraft at all times has resulted in unnecessary, expensive crashes. By contrast, US Army drones with auto-landing equipment and cheaply-trained operators have an enviable record.

 

The comments were made by John Young, outgoing acquisition chief at the Defense Department. Young’s remarks are reported differently by various media, and were followed up with corrections by his staff, so it’s hard to be sure how many of what classes of aircraft he said had crashed or not crashed.

 

What’s clear is that in Young’s view the Air Force deliberately insisted on not having auto-landing in their well-known Predator drones, and that this has been unnecessarily costly.

 

“The Air Force built a budget that didn’t include putting auto-land capability in their Predators, despite the fact that we’ve lost a third of the Predators we’ve ever bought, and a significant fraction of the losses are attributable either to the ground control station or the pilot’s operation of that ground control station, or the pilot’s operation of the vehicle,” he said, according to Stars and Stripes.

 

It’s well known that Air Force Predators and Reapers must be handled at all times in flight by a fully-qualified human pilot, a commissioned officer and gentleman/woman who has learned his or her trade in normal manned aircraft. During landing and takeoff, this pilot officer will be in a control station at the runway, so as to reduce latency: but for most of a mission the aircraft is handled over satcomms from bases in the USA.

 

The US Army has a differing philosophy: it’s “Sky Warrior” variant of the Predator is intended to land itself automatically, and the present-day Shadow has such kit already. Army drones are controlled by noncomissioned tech specialists who, while fully trained and qualified for their job, have no airborne stick time in regular aircraft. They are always in theatre with the rest of the troops.

 

A US Army sergeant, qualified to fly both the Warrior and the Shadow and with operational experience in Iraq, recently told the Reg:

 

Officers and Warrant Officers have a college degree as per their job requirements. NCOs and Enlisted Soldiers are not required to have a degree to join the military and tend to be seen as little more than trained monkeys … The US Air Force considers itself to be the only branch qualified to fly aircraft. They have been trying to take the UAS program away from the Army as a matter of principle … Previous training in crewed aircraft is irrelevant to UAS training … I am insulted by much of the ‘Oh, you fly an X-box’ mentality which I constantly have to battle.

 

Sergeant pilots? “You may not be surprised to hear that the Air Force is resisting this”
The Army philosophy is mostly applied on weaponless drones, but this is beginning to change as Warrior begins to reach the field. A US Army Warrior, indeed, recently delivered a deadly airstrike while under the command of a (relatively) low-ranking staff sergeant, rather than the officer or warrant-officer who would have been flying had it been a manned aircraft.

 

The application of massive lethal force by non-officers is routine in the ground forces, of course – sergeants routinely command tanks, direct artillery etc – but it certainly seems to ruffle a few feathers in the air arms. Pilots often seem to feel that unmanned aircraft are a bad idea, but if they are to happen anyway they’ll still have an officer pilot who’s been to flight school and flown normal planes, by god.

 

It seems that this attitude is being challenged, however. Army drones with auto-land have lost “an insignificant fraction” of their fleets, as opposed to the conventionally remote-piloted jobs, according to Mr Young.

 

“I have mandated in acquisition decision memorandums that the Air Force move as fast as possible to an auto-land capability … It will not surprise you that the Air Force is resisting this,” he added, according to DoD Buzz.

 

That certainly isn’t surprising: the USAF may be hoping that they can quietly bin that order after Mr Young is gone.

 

They’re probably wrong, though. President Obama has confirmed Young’s boss, Robert Gates, in post as Defense Secretary: and Gates is scarcely the most airforce-friendly SecDef the United States have ever had, despite having briefly been a USAF officer himself (non-aircrew, though) back in the 1960s. Gates famously sacked both the civilian and uniformed heads of the air force last year, following various clashes – including a huge row over foot-dragging by the USAF in building up its unmanned fleet.

 

Gates seems likely to see to it that Young’s reforms are pushed through in his absence, and a little bit more of the officer-class flyboys’ raison d’etre will be chipped away. ®

 

Bootnote
The handful of British Reapers, Blighty’s only armed drones, is operated by an RAF squadron drawing personnel from all three services using pilots already qualified on manned aircraft: your correspondent isn’t aware of any non-officer ever handling one.

One should note, however, that British Army manned helicopter pilots are frequently noncommissioned: some are as low as Corporal in rank on qualifying. This contrasts sharply with the US and the other British services, where almost all manned-aircraft pilots are commissioned and none are below the status of Warrant Officer (there are special direct-entry warrant ranks used by US Army pilots, fitting between sergeant-majors and commissioned officers in status).

 

At least in theory, a British noncommissioned pilot could wind up flying an armed British Reaper – which makes sense as he is already allowed to fly a heavily beweaponed Apache attack chopper.

 

The British Army also has unarmed Hermes 450 surveillance drones leased in on an hourly rate and operated by a mixture of civilian contractors and artillery noncoms. In future an enhanced version, Watchkeeper, will become part of the Royal Artillery. As one might expect, the gunners do not wish to take business away from their big guns and rocket launchers (and do not relish the prospect of a turf grab from the RAF), so Watchkeeper will also be unarmed.

Jul 14, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

Robot wars: March towards machine warriors just beginning

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

P.W. Singer has been at the forefront of predicting trends in warfare.

 

The Washington-based analyst’s 2005 book, Children at War, was a comprehensive examination of the increasing use of children as combatants while his 2003 book Corporate Warriors broke new ground with its warnings about the rise of private military contractors.

 

Singer’s latest work, Wired for War, is indeed timely. The revolution involving robot warriors has started in earnest. Robots are being used on a daily basis by U.S. forces to defuse car bombs and destroy improvised explosive devices in Iraq while American Predator unmanned aerial vehicles, armed with missiles, prowl the skies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, seeking out al-Qaeda and Taliban targets.

 

As Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, notes, by 2008 there were 5,331 unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, in the U.S. military’s inventory, almost double the amount of manned planes being operated.

 

Singer, a first-rate researcher, meticulously lays out the development of the science of robotics and the early introduction of basic weapons in that field. A milestone was the Goliath, a German “demolition vehicle” the size of a small go-cart and packed with more than 100 pounds of explosives. More than 8,000 of the robot tracked vehicles were used during the Second World War.

 

But during the past decade, and in particular in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, robots have really come into their own. While research has been led largely by the U.S., other nations including Canada have climbed aboard the robotic warrior technology train.

 

The Canadian military operates UAVs in Kandahar and in theis planning to purchase more pilotless aircraft for overseas missions and to patrol the country’s borders. Canada’s special forces also use a robotic vehicle to search out chemical, nuclear or biological contamination.

 

The prevalence of such machines on the battlefield, and their capability to save lives, has created in some cases a bond between soldier and robot.

 

Singer details how one U.S. soldier in Iraq became upset when told that his unit’s bomb-hunting robot nicknamed “Scooby-Doo” could not be repaired after it was damaged in a blast. Scooby had hunted down and defused 18 improvised explosive devices and one car bomb, dangerous missions that had saved multiple human lives.

 

Other soldiers awarded their unit robots medals or “promoted” them because of the jobs they performed destroying IEDs. Soldiers were not just doing this as a joke, but because they are truly bonding with these machines, concludes Singer.

 

When one robot was knocked out of action in Iraq, a soldier ran 50 metres, all the while being shot at by an enemy machinegun, to “rescue” the machine.

 

But ultimately, the robotic revolution sweeping the battlefield is also changing the face of warfare, not necessarily for the better. Singer and others worry that machines further distance some military personnel from the brutality of battle.

 

Such distance has already been established in modern times with pilots being able to bomb from great heights, not ever seeing the face of their enemy. Those pilots, however, could still be shot down so they faced the danger of battle.

 

Those operating UAVs can often see the face of the enemy using cameras on board the aircraft, but the experience is more akin to a video game. And there is no risk since the UAV operators flying aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan are actually situated in air-conditioned trailers at a Nevada military base. After their shift is over, they get into their cars and drive home to their families in nearby Las Vegas.

 

“By removing warriors completely from risk and fear, unmanned systems create the first complete break in the ancient connection that defines warriors and their soldierly values,” Singer writes. “If you are sitting at a computer’s controls, with no real danger other than carpal tunnel syndrome, your experience of wars is not merely distanced from risk, as with previous technologies, but now fully disconnected from it.”

 

Singer also raises the concern that the U.S. overreliance on technology could backfire. Instead of striking fear in the heart of insurgents, the missile-laden UAVs could promote the view that Americans are cowards since they do not want to fight face-to-face.

 

“These systems will show the pathway to your defeat unintentionally,” explained Mabashar Jawed Akbar, an Indian Muslim who is founding editor of the Asian Age. “They create a subtext that shows that you don’t want to die … That all we need to win is to frighten them.”

 

In talking about the Israeli use of UAVs, Lebanese international affairs analyst Rami Khouri has observed that instead of hurting morale among Hezbollah fighters, attacks by such aircraft fuelled a greater desire to fight back.

 

It’s clear from Singer’s book, however, that the role of robotic warriors will only increase on the battlefield. And the idea of systems resembling those from the Terminator films is not so far-fetched. One U.S. military report predicted, “Just as World War One accelerated automotive technology, the war on terrorists will accelerate the development of humanoid robot technology.”

 

Other robots will have more in common with the insect world. Singer writes that we can expect Proliferated Autonomous Weapons, or PRAWNS, in future war zones. Resembling a swarm of bees, these miniature robots would use simple sensors to find the enemy.

 

Each individual robot would have knowledge of how many fellow robots are attacking the same target, Singer writes. Much as ants have different types working in their colonies, the individual PRAWNs might also carry different weapons or sensors allowing them to match themselves to the needs of the overall swarm to carry out their mission.

 

The robotic world of war in the future will be terrifying indeed.

Jul 10, 2009, post by awatrobski

Fort Campbell Soldiers Celebrated 4th July In The White House.

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

A group of Fort Campbell soldiers enjoyed July 4th in an unforgettable way. They had been invited to celebrate to Independence Day at the White House.

 

The soldiers had been invited to Washington D.C. by President Barack Obama as part of the White House salute to the military. The event honored our nation’s troops, and celebrated their success.

 

“For me, its pride – I enjoy what I’m doing,” said Specialist Jason Forster with the 4th Brigade Combat Team.
An American soldier does need a gratitude and never asks for a reward, but having dinner with the President on the 4th of July is tough for any soldier to turn down.

 

“In this line of work you normally don’t get to meet your boss… but you actually get to meet your boss this time,” says SPC Forster.

 

Twenty-five Fort Campbell soldiers join the president to celebrate Independence Day.

 

“We’re going to have dinner at the White House and meet the president. There’s no better way to spend the 4th of July,” says SPC Forster.

 

On Saturday, the soldiers had dinner with President Obama, and they have got to watch the fireworks from the South Lawn of the White House. Each member of the 101st earned their trip to the nation’s capitol through their service overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Not surprisingly, before the event soldiers have been wondering what it will be like to spend dinner with the Commander in Chief.

 

“You can’t think of a more patriotic way to spend the 4th of July for someone in the military than to go to the White House to enjoy fireworks with the President of the United States,” said Chief Warrant Officer Travis Higgins, with the Warrior Transition Unit.

 

Each of the soldiers has earned their chance to meet the president. Higgins was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot in Iraq.

 

“It’s just a very unexpected perk that came with the job, I guess,” he says.

 

Specialist Greg Waters was awarded the Silver Star for his work as a medic in Afghanistan.

 

“The reward was in the people I treated overseas – that’s where my reward is. Meeting the President, obviously, is a huge honor,” says SPC Waters.

 

They may not ask for a reward, or require a thank you, but this Fourth of July, they’ll get both from the President of the United States.

 

“I’ve been in the army a long time and never had an opportunity like this before. All I can say is I am very lucky,” says CWO Higgins.

 

Members of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, the 101st Division Special Troops Battalion, and the Warrior Transition Team were all invited to make the trip.