Airbus, easyJet, Rolls-Royce join forces in UK on hydrogen-powered flying | Reuters

On the same subject

• 

  August 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  China’s industry reaps the benefits of political connections, international trade

  By: Mike Yeo MELBOURNE, Australia — China's defense companies continue their strong showing in the Defense News Top 100 list, with two of its companies in this year's top 10. The Aviation Industry Corporation of China, or AVIC (landing in 6th place), and China North Industries Group Corporation Limited, also known as NORINCO (8th place), reported defense-related revenue figures of $25.07 billion and $14.77 billion respectively. A third Chinese company in last years top 10, China Aerospace and Science Industry Corporation, or CASIC, dropped one place to 11th in this year's list. Overall, eight Chinese state-owned defense companies made it into this year's Top 100 ranking of defense companies around the world, including China's two largest shipbuilding conglomerates — China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation and China State Shipbuilding Corporation — which merged in November 2019 to create China State Shipbuilding Corporation Limited, or CSSC. Signs of growth China's industrial base has been the beneficiary of the country's economic reform efforts and globalization since the 1970s. The state of Chinese industry took a quantum leap with the end of the Cold War; the Asian economic powerhouse reaped the benefit of an exposure to advanced technology and modern manufacturing methods. These advances have transferred over to its defense industry, partly as a result of the transfer of civilian technologies, which are not restricted by Western sanctions on arms sales, implemented in response to China's human rights record, or obtained from countries that are not a party to those sanctions, like Russia and Ukraine. As a result, China's defense industry is today virtually unrecognizable from its early days when it mostly made both licensed and unlicensed copies of Soviet-era equipment. The most obvious of this is the continuing acquisition by China of the Russian Sukhoi Flanker family of fighter jets, which has subsequently seen the Asian country churn out increasingly capable analogs of their Russian counterparts. Beginning in the early 1990s with the acquisition and license production of the Su-27 interceptor, which has since morphed into the Shenyang J-11B equipped with indigenous avionics and weapons, China has subsequently imported the multirole Su-30 and Su-35 interceptors. The former has formed the basis of the Shenyang J-16, and it is likely both Russian types may form the technological basis for continued upgrades to the J-11 design. The unprecedented modernization of the People's Liberation Army over the past two decades in lockstep with China's economic development has also meant that the defense industry has been lavishly funded to equip a captive home market. Meia Nouwens, research fellow for Chinese defense policy and military modernization at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, which helped Defense News compile the Top 100 data for Chinese defense companies, noted that President Xi Jinping is prioritizing defense at a national level as part of an effort to simultaneously pursue geostrategic goals and economic development. The national leadership's political will to transform China into a global power “should not be overlooked,” she said. She added that China's defense industry is capable of producing high-quality, high-tech defense products, although companies “still seeks to cooperate with international counterparts in academia and industry to gain access to cutting-edge know-how, skills and technology.” This has taken place alongside a large investment in domestic research and development, which Nouwens said has led to breakthroughs, specifically in the development of China's air-to-air missiles and quantum technology. For his part, Xi has promoted “the slimming down of large conglomerates, increased coordination with the [People's Liberation Army], enhanced effectiveness and sought to reduce the duplication of efforts,” she added. Export potential China's ongoing military modernization efforts means the local defense industry doesn't need to rely on the export market to sustain itself. Nevertheless, Nouwens said, Chinese defense conglomerates may be encouraged to increase exports given that Xi wants them to become increasingly self-sufficient and globally competitive. She added that the trend of defense exports and transfers being a cornerstone of Chinese diplomacy is likely to continue. The most obvious manifestation of this is China's continued export of materiel to Pakistan as well as the assistance Beijing has provided to developing the South Asian country's own defense industrial base. A side effect of this support included wedging China's geostrategic rival India, who is also frequently at odds with Pakistan. Nouwens also touched on the two-tier policy when it comes to China's defense exports, with its top-of-the-line equipment unavailable for export. However, she noted, China has improved the capabilities of defense articles available for export, including submarine technology, more modern frigates and collaboration with Pakistan in developing the JF-17 fighter jet. The latter has also been exported to Myanmar and Nigeria. One of China's most prominent exports remains its unmanned aircraft, with Nouwens noting that this market segment provided China with a “perfect combination of a capability that addressed a certain gap at a cost significantly cheaper than competitors on the market.” The window of opportunity has narrowed, however, with the U.S. having relaxed its own UAV export regulations. Countries like Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which have all acquired Chinese unmanned aircraft, may now turn to American designs instead; Jordan has already put up its Chinese-built CH-4 drones for sale. Despite reforms, Nouwens said, China's defense industry is bloated and, in some cases, requires further streamlining, with several of the industry's conglomerates involved in sectors as varied as hospitals and schools. https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/chinas-industry-reaps-the-benefits-of-political-connections-international-trade/

• 

  October 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  The US Navy’s ‘Manhattan Project’ has its leader

  David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The US Navy's top officer has tasked a former surface warfare officer turned engineering duty officer to create a powerful, all-connecting network service leaders believe they will need to fight and win against a high-end foe such as China. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday tasked Rear Adm. Douglas Small to lead an effort that will “develop networks, infrastructure, data architecture, tools, and analytics that support the operational and developmental environment that will enable our sustained maritime dominance.” Calling the effort “Project Overmatch,” Gilday called it the Navy's top priority after the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. “Beyond recapitalizing our undersea deterrent, there is no higher developmental priority in the U.S. Navy,” Gilday said. “All other efforts are supporting you. Your goal is to enable a Navy that swarms the sea, delivering synchronized lethal and non-lethal effects from near-and-far, every axis, and every domain.” In the past, Gilday has referred to the effort to field a powerful network as its “Manhattan Project,” harkening back to the rapid development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s. The urgency behind the effort to create this network highlights the growing sense of unease the Navy has around its position in the world as China builds towards its goal of achieving first-rate military power status by 2049. “The Navy's ability to establish and sustain sea control in the future is at risk," Gilday said in his letter. “I am confident that closing this risk is dependent on enhancing Distributed Maritime Operations through a teamed manned/unmanned force that exploits artificial intelligence and machine learning. I am not confident we are building the Naval Operational Architecture connecting and enabling this future force as quickly as we must.” The network is to connect with the Air Force's Joint All-Domain Command and Control effort, which the services are all lining up behind. Breaking Defense first reported the memo. Small started his career as a surface warfare officer but became an engineering duty officer in 1997. He has a background in electronic warfare and above-water sensors, as well as work at the Missile Defense Agency. In the Oct. 1 memo, Gilday has tasked him to report after 60 days, then every 90 days after that. In a separate memo to Vice Adm. James Kilby, the Navy's top warfighting requirements officer, Gilday said he wanted the Navy to develop both a concept of operations and a coherent kill chain based on an “any-sensor, any-shooter,” construct, an idea that would mean that any track obtained by any sensor can be passed to any ship or platform with a missile with which to kill it, something that would be enabled by Small's network. ‘We don't have and adequate net' In comments last year, Gilday said the Navy needed to move out with urgency to create a powerful network. “The biggest challenge for us is to join all the main command and control,” Gilday said. “We're building netted weapons, netted platforms, and netted [command-and-control] nodes, but we don't have an adequate net, and that's a critical piece.” The Navy has been working toward a concept of operations that links its ships, aircraft and unmanned platforms by way of communications relay nodes — such as small drones — or whole ships — such as the future frigate or high-tech aircraft like the E-2D Hawkeye. The idea is to spread the force out over a wide area, as opposed to clustered around a carrier, to put a maximum burden on Chinese intelligence and reconnaissance assets. This spread-out, networked force would connect the various shooters so that if any individual node in the network sees something to kill, any Navy or Air Force asset with weapons within range can kill it. This has led to a push for ever-longer-range missiles. But to make it work, all the pieces must be linked on a reliable communications network. The current architecture, according to the Navy, is insufficient for the job, given Chinese and Russian investments in electronic warfare that can interfere with communications. https://www.c4isrnet.com/naval/2020/10/14/the-us-navys-manhattan-project-has-its-leader/

• 

  May 8, 2019 | International, Land, C4ISR

  The Army looks to build up its cyber arsenal

  By: Mark Pomerleau The Army is building a new tactical cyber force and it's going to need an arsenal. Immediately stocking one is another story, however, because “offensive cyber” tools are currently developed and owned by U.S. Cyber Command for the joint mission, so the Army is working on how to best equip its teams' specific needs. The Army's 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion (CWSB) will be capable of conducting localized cyber effects through the electromagnetic spectrum, rather than the IP-based operations conducted by Cyber Command, though it might have a tie-in with these forces and capabilities. The CWSB will operate as an Army Cyber Command asset. It will live at the division level with 12 expeditionary cyber teams, each consisting of 45-person detachment-sized elements that will be in support of brigade combat teams and arrayed over that brigade's battlespace on the ground. They will likely operate alongside companies. In order to prepare these new cyber teams, the Army will have to work through the Joint Cyber Warfighter Architecture (JCWA), a singular approach to tools and platforms for high-end, remote cyber operators established by Cyber Command. “By defining that architecture, then Cyber Command encourages the service cyber components with their acquisition entities to propose capabilities that would meet that architecture,” Ronald Pontius, deputy to the commanding general at Army Cyber Command, told Fifth Domain on the sidelines of an industry conference May 1. “Cyber Command should lead the architecture and standards, then they should be looking to the services to actually build the capability.” The JCWA is intended to guide capability development across all the services, as Cyber Command doesn't want capabilities designed and used by one service. How that translates into equipping these Army-specific entities requires working out “synergies” between that tactical force and the larger force, so determining what common and custom tools the CWSB uses will be in concert with the joint Cyber Command forces. “It all has to be integrated from top to bottom,” Kenneth Strayer, deputy program manager for electronic warfare and cyber at Program Executive Office-Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, told Fifth Domain. “All the way from sanctuary through developing capabilities to delivering capabilities. This all has to be integrated and it's all nested on Cyber Command and ARCYBER, [which] is a component, and the tactical units are all nested under ARCYBER.” Strayer added that he wouldn't separate them, but obviously the needed capabilities will be different depending on the placement of units, either in the close fight on the ground or in remote sanctuary. Questions Army Cyber Command leaders will have to wrestle with regarding using tools from the joint force at the tactical level include what infrastructure forces will operate on, and whether the tool will be attributable or not. Pontius said generally tools should be 100-percent attributable in the tactical space [letting victims know the United States is attacking them as a deterrent of further action], while that is not always the case in the joint environment. Having the CWSB in Army Cyber Command and not distributed throughout the service, he added, aids in answering these questions, optimizing tool development, and keeping the force trained and certified much more efficiently than if members of this force were spread out across different Army entities. One way the Army is potentially benefiting the CWSB separate from the joint mission is a recent $1 billion contract for research and development work in support of the cyber mission. Contractors awarded are tasked with providing research into cyber and electromagnetic activities (CEMA) capabilities. The contract currently is not asking for any materiel development. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/army/2019/05/06/the-army-looks-to-build-up-its-cyber-arsenal/