Airbus joins forces with Lockheed to step in Boeing’s backyard

On the same subject

• 

  July 6, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Study finds these gaps in Army’s small unit counter-drone capabilities

  Army units at and below the battalion level are unprepared to defeat aerial drones and current plans can't keep up with rapidly evolving technology, according to a recent study. Back in 2016, the Army Research Office asked an outside organization, The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, to evaluate their counter drone capabilities for battalion and below operations. The report they published earlier this year notes some significant gaps and threats to soldiers with this technology. “Contrary to the past, when U.S. warfighters may have found (improvised explosive devices), now the IEDs will find our warfighters,” according to the report. While the Army and Marine Corps, which also included representatives in the study, are throwing resources at the small drone problem, they are not keeping pace with the threat. “Army time frames are significantly out of sync with the rapidly advancing performance capabilities of individual (small Unmanned Aerial Systems) and teams of sUASs,” according to the report. The report noted that most of the service's counter drone asset work was focused on heavy vehicle platforms or on fixed sites, which leaves smaller units most likely to first encounter the threat more exposed. “Significant quantities of man-portable” counter-drone systems have been fielded, Army spokesman Maj. Chris Ophardt told Army Times in an email. The Army will continue to pursue those capabilities based on emerging threats. Based on his response, which did not include details of capabilities, the Army is pursuing other ways to defeat drones. A large portion of the study was classified, due to operational security concerns. “Future Army C-UAS systems will encompass a variety of potential platforms to include fixed, mobile, and Soldier-portable capabilities,” Ophardt wrote. But beyond the types of systems employed, what they're targeting or attacking also came under fire in the report. The Army and other branches have invested significantly in counter-drone technology, “often focusing on detecting radio frequency transmissions and GPS signals of individual sUASs. However, today's consumer and customized sUASs can increasingly operate without radio frequency (command and control) links.” Drones now available can use automated target recognition, tracking, obstacle avoidance and other software-enabled activities instead of traditional RF and GPS. Ophardt did not divulge specifics of how the Army is addressing this, but responded that the service's counter drone capabilities, “include multiple methods in order to detect, identify and defeat enemy UAS.” A new school began last month at Fort Benning, Georgia to give basic trainees familiarity with small drones. The drone school gives infantry and scouts the ability to fill out a seven-line report when they encounter a drone then relay that info to their headquarters. The students use both fixed-wing and helicopter small drones. They also learn defensive tactics such as how to use dispersal and hiding tactics to minimize casualties from drone-coordinated fires, according to an Army release. Those introductory tactics can help even brand-new soldiers start thinking about how to deal with drone threats. But, at the same time, the low-level tactics currently used for counter drone work have tried to use “kinetic effects,” basically shooting down the drone by interfering with its signals or overheating its circuits. The report noted that method isn't practical on a wide scale for large numbers of troops, especially dismounted units. That path only adds more gear from the equipment to the batteries, to an already overloaded soldier, not to mention the “cognitive load” of training and using another piece of equipment, according to the report. Ophardt responded that the Army's counter-drone strategy included “multiple methods” to detect, identify and defeat” enemy drones. The major provided a similar response when asked about Army efforts at counter-drone tactics, capabilities against swarming drones and collaboratively acting drone groups, which the report remarks will be more prevalent and sophisticated as soon as 2025. Report authors urge Army leaders to adjust their timelines for matching tech development, which are woefully inadequate for the exponential changes in software, hardware and drone capabilities. Current Army time frames consider near-term planning to run from now until 2025; mid-term planning in the 2026 to 2035 window and far-term at the 2036 to 2050. Those efforts mirror vehicle acquisition strategy timelines, not the drone arena. The report pushes for a near-term planning of one to two years, mid-term at the three- to five-year level and far term in drone tech at the six- to eight-year range. The advances are happening so quickly, authors point out, that it is “impossible to predict performance capabilities beyond eight years.” https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/07/05/study-finds-these-gaps-in-armys-small-unit-counter-drone-capabilities

• 

  September 14, 2018 | International, C4ISR

  Really old computer viruses are still infecting new machines

  By: Justin Lynch The biggest cyber threats governments and businesses face may not be the cutting edge hack from China, but a 10-year-old virus that infects a little-used computer. Some of the most well-known viruses from the past decade are still infecting machines despite their well-documented nature, according to cyber research firms. Some viruses, such as WannaCry and Conficker, are still spreading, Sean Sullivan, a security adviser at F-Secure told Fifth Domain. “It costs hackers nothing to keep using them,” Sullivan said. These known vulnerabilities are still effective because older machines do not receive patches for updates, which can then infect an entire network. Hackers often bundle known hacks together because it increases their success rate with no downside, Sullivan said. “Nothing is going to be 100 percent patched across organizations,” Sullivan, said. He described a network administrator's role as “triage.” The 2017 WannaCry hack infected users in more than 150 countries and had an economic impact of anywhere from $4 billion to $8 billion. Although progress has been made to patch computers, WannaCry is still a top malware threat for customers, F-Stream said in a September report. The Conficker hack targeted Windows systems and was first launched in 2008. It is reported to have cost as much as $9 billion in damage. But much work remains. More than two-billion devices have not been patched to defend against BlueBorne, a Bluetooth vulnerability that allows an attacker to take over devices, according to the cyber protection company Armis. The devices are still vulnerable because they have not been updated or because an update does not exist, according to the company. “Whether they're brought in by employees and contractors, or by guests using enterprise networks for temporary connectivity, these devices can expose enterprises to significant risks,” wrote Ben Seri, the vice president of research at Armis. A previous version of this article said that two million devices have not been patched to defend against BlueBorne. It is two billion. https://www.fifthdomain.com/industry/2018/09/13/really-old-computer-viruses-are-still-infecting-new-machines

• 

  June 20, 2019 | International, Naval

  Navy: Next Large Surface Combatant Will Look A Lot Like Zumwalt

  By: Ben Werner WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy's next large surface combatant will probably look more like the futuristic Zumwalt class of guided-missile destroyers than fleet's current workhorse class of Arleigh Burke destroyers, the program executive officer said. Navy and industry designers are talking about increased payloads, increased computing and increased design flexibility when considering the possible capabilities of the fleet's next large surface combatant, Rear Adm. William Galinis, the Navy's program executive officer for ships, said during the American Society of Naval Engineering's annual Technology, Systems & Ship symposium on Tuesday. Designers also have to consider that the Navy now plans to operate in an increasingly contested environment, which means taking into account how adversaries will see the new ship class on radars. “The signature aspect of it, what does that do to the shaping of deckhouse hull form. I will tell you, not to predispose anything, but I think in the end, you know, it's probably going to look a lot more like a DDG-1000 than a DDG-51 if I had to say so,” Galinis said. “But there's still a lot of work to kind of go do in that area.” Galinis was speaking during the opening keynote address at the 2019 TSS conference. Rear Adm. Lorin Selby, the Navy's chief engineer and deputy commander for ship design at Naval Sea Systems Command, joined Galinis during the keynote. The Navy had planned to buy the first of its new class of large surface combatant in 2023, but Galinis said the Navy has since pushed back the start date. USNI News first reported the Navy now is looking at awarding a contract in Fiscal Year 2025. The current Arleigh Burke-class multi-year contract expires in 2022. By pushing back the production timeline, Galinis said the Navy can refine its requirements now and incorporate feedback from industry and current programs to help improve the ship design and control costs. As an example, Galinis said the Navy continues learning from the DDG-1000 program. The Navy is applying a lot of acquisition and production lessons learned from the Zumwalt class experience to the Columbia-class submarine program, Galinis said. “When you start thinking about large surface combatant, that's going to be a key element of that acquisition strategy,” Galinis said. At the same time, the current emphasis on developing new ships is increasing the demand for ship design expertise, Selby said. He wants to establish a constant design workflow so the Navy doesn't lose talent during the years between ship major designs. “There's a lot of design work across the enterprise,” Selby said. “We really have to work hard to build that talent base back up.” When introducing Galinis and Selby, retired Navy Capt. Richard White, the TSS 2019 committee chair, said Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer had requested that conference attendees not ask questions about aircraft carriers. During his keynote address highlighting recent advances naval ship design, Galinis merely said, “the one new design over the last couple of years is obviously the Ford-class carrier, but we're not going to talk a lot about that over the next couple of days.” During the second day of TSS 2019, White provided clarification to his previous comments regarding the discussion of aircraft carriers. When planning this year's conference, the decision was made to focus on surface ships. There was no direction from the Navy regarding asking about aircraft carriers. “I did not receive any direction from the Secretary of the Navy,” White said. https://news.usni.org/2019/06/19/navy-next-large-surface-combatant-will-look-a-lot-like-zumwalt