Army officials question plan for future attack reconnaissance

On the same subject

• 

  October 27, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  With its new space centre, NATO seeks the ultimate high ground

  Murray Brewster It's not the Space Force you may have heard about. Still, NATO's newly announced space centre boldly takes the seven-decade-old institution where no international military alliance has gone before. Most of its leading members and adversaries have sought individual advantage in the final frontier over the decades. And while the European Space Agency is a collective body, its civilian mission and its politics are inarguably different from those of NATO. That difference was on display this week as NATO defence ministers, meeting online, put the final pieces in place for the new centre, which has been in the works for a couple of years. "The space environment has fundamentally changed in the last decade," said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. "Some nations, including Russia and China, are developing anti-satellite systems that could blind, disable or shoot down satellites and create dangerous debris in orbit." NATO "must increase our understanding of the challenges in space," he said. Unlike U.S. President Donald Trump's much-hyped plan to make the Space Force a separate branch of the U.S. military, the North Atlantic alliance has been careful to present its space centre not as a "war fighting" arm but as something purely defensive. A 1967 international treaty commits 110 countries, including the United States and Canada, to limiting their use of space to "peaceful purposes" alone and prohibits the basing of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear bombs, for instance) in orbit. It further prohibits the militarization of the moon and other celestial bodies. Stoltenberg has insisted that alliance activities will be in line with international law. The rising threat of war in space That's an important point for Paul Meyer, adjunct professor of international studies in international security at Simon Fraser University in B.C. He warned in a recent policy paper for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute that the "prospects for armed conflict in space appear more likely than they have been since the days of the Cold War." Meyer said world leaders should think hard about what role — if any — arms control could play in avoiding a war in space. "Diplomatic solutions are not being pursued, despite the fact that irresponsible state conduct in space can ruin it for everyone," he said Friday. NATO has no satellites or space infrastructure of its own — but many member nations do and Stoltenberg said the alliance will draw on their expertise in setting up the new centre. Almost all modern militaries rely on satellites. In any major conflict between NATO and either Russia or China, the orbital communication and navigation grid would be the first piece of infrastructure to be hit. Not only does NATO need satellites for surveillance, reconnaissance and communications, an increasing number of military operations are being targeted from space. A good example is the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, during which 68 per cent of airstrikes employed smart bombs guided by lasers and satellites. Those "eyes in the sky" are also important for defence against ballistic missiles and (naturally) weather forecasting. Diplomacy and deterrence Dan Coats, the former U.S. director of national intelligence, warned Congress almost two years ago that China and Russia have trained and equipped their military space forces with new anti-satellite weapons. Those warnings have not been limited to the Trump administration. In the spring of 2019, Norway accused Russia of "harassing" communications systems and jamming Norwegian Armed Forces GPS signals. Last spring, the NATO space centre reported that Moscow had test-fired a satellite-killing missile. Frank Rose, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said in a recent online policy analysis that outer space will need to be "mainstreamed" within NATO when it comes to planning and operations. He also argued that the alliance will need to find a way to "incorporate diplomacy into any eventual strategy." Meyer agreed and noted in his October 2020 policy paper that Canada is largely absent from any meaningful debate on the militarization of space. The Global Affairs website, he said, contains outdated material, is full of banal, non-specific references and is largely devoid of Canadian content. "Pity the Canadian citizen who wishes to understand where our country stands on this troubling issue of outer space security," Meyer wrote. It's not clear what sort of contribution Canada might make to the new NATO space centre. In a statement, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said it's important for Canada's allies to develop a strategy that "ensures a peaceful use of space while protecting ourselves. "Canada has been a leading voice in NATO about the importance of space for the Alliance and we remain committed to working with our Allies and partners to prevent space from becoming an arena of conflict." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-space-command-space-militarization-stoltenberg-1.5775269

• 

  December 16, 2019 | International, Land

  The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer?

  By: Valerie Insinna SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. — With no end in sight to the demand on the tanker fleet, the U.S. Air Force is actively seeking agreements with defense contractors for aerial refueling services. On Dec. 17, Air Mobility Command will hold an industry day at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, in the hopes of better understanding how it can contract for commercial air refueling services to supplement tanking missions performed by the Air Force's KC-135s, KC-10s and KC-46s. “We do think that this is an opportunity that needs to be pursued,” Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, the command's deputy chief, said during an exclusive interview with Defense News on Dec. 10. “If we can find a viable, clear path with industry, we should do it.” The Air Force believes there are a certain set of aerial-refueling missions conducted in a uncontested environment that could provide a predictable stream of business, Thomas said. Through the industry day, the service is hoping to better understand how companies might be able to fulfill those requirements. “There are several providers ... that would propose that they have their own tanker that's already flying and doing great work for other air forces,” he said. “That's fascinating to us. There's another vendor that has procured boom-equipped tankers from a foreign air force that is a proven capability. There are some others that may be doing the same thing with a different foreign air force. So I would say that they're out there and they're committing to the idea that if the Air Force is serious, we're serious about this, too.” There are a number of parameters that industry would have to address, such as meeting the Air Force's aircraft certification standards and the Federal Aviation Administration's demands for refueling in U.S. airspace. Companies must also be able to refuel aircraft using a boom — a requirement that may hinder certain tankers that use a probe and drogue for refueling. “Right now, all commercial aerial refueling services are drogue only. It has to be a boom aircraft for the U.S. Air Force to be able to really leverage it in any meaningful way,” Thomas said. Although Thomas declined to talk about specific vendors that could provide air refueling services, Lockheed Martin and Airbus — which joined forces in 2018 to pitch a fee-for-service model for Airbus's A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport — have been vocal about courting the U.S. Air Force as a customer. Michele Evans, head of Lockheed's aeronautics business, told reporters in June that the companies are in discussions with the U.S. military about A330 sales, leasing or a fee-for service construct, and that U.S. Transportation Command in particular showed interest. “We've really been able to show them what we think is capable, feasible,” she said. “You can never have enough tanking capability. As you look at the challenges of the battlespace and the threat and capabilities, having to be standoff farther and farther, it's a great opportunity for them to go revisit their capabilities versus capacity.” Still, Evans acknowledged there is much to be determined, including the exact nature of the business partnership between Airbus and Lockheed, should a contract emerge, and how the company would structure a fee-for-service contract with the Air Force or other potential customers. One possible construct would involve associating a cost for each gallon of fuel delivered. If the Air Force decides not to move forward with purchasing aerial refueling services, it still has a number of options for augmenting the tanker force. In the near term, Air Mobility Command can retain some KC-135s that were slated to be divested as the KC-46 comes online, Thomas said. In March, Transportation Command chief Gen. Stephen Lyons told Congress that the Air Force was considering keeping as many as 28 KC-135s. The Air Force is currently debating 14 KC-135s as part of the fiscal 2021 budget, Thomas said. “We'll see how the president's budget goes over. I really hope that it will allow us to retain some additional capacity. I don't know if it will,” he said. “But that's our first lever that we can pull." Another option is increasing the KC-46 program of record, which currently stands at 179 tankers. However, Boeing is still in the process of making extensive changes to the aircraft's remote vision system, which the aircraft uses for refueling, and Air Mobility Command won't be able to consider a production increase until those fixes are made, Thomas said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12/13/the-air-force-needs-more-tankers-could-the-defense-industry-have-the-answer/

• 

  May 14, 2019 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

  The Pentagon wants to create a broader network of innovators

  By: Mike Gruss The Pentagon is reorganizing its internal offices to better partner with universities and upstart technology firms to ensure the military has access to talent and research in the near future and to fortify its innovation pipeline. Defense leaders are increasingly worried about what they describe as the national security innovation base. They hope a series of steps will make it easier to work with, and take advantage of, the leading-edge science across the country. This includes technology that spans from the concept stage to the production stage, and outlets that includes researchers to the defense industrial base. The changes, which affect the Defense Innovation Unit and MD5, were first mentioned in the Pentagon's budget request for fiscal 2020 and have been discussed with increasing details in recent weeks. Defense innovation leaders explained the new setup to C4ISRNET in an interview May 9. DIU's mission is to help the military accelerate its use of emerging commercial technologies and lower the barrier of entry for businesses that don't already do business with the Pentagon. Under the new approach: - The MD5 National Security Technology Accelerator has been renamed the National Security Innovation Network. The network, which helps connect academia, DOD laboratories and users, will fall under the Defense Innovation Unit as a way to take advantage of economies of scale. Morgan Plummer, the network's managing director, said the new name, which changed May 6, more accurately portrays the agency's mission. The program has its own line in the budget for the first time in fiscal 2020. - The National Security Innovation Capital fund, a new program created in the fiscal 2019 defense policy bill, will set aside investment in upstart U.S. companies so they don't fall risk to foreign investors. U.S. leaders fear that as some startups become so desperate for funding they may not consider the national security ramifications of accepting money from overseas. “It's an attempt to keep hardware investment on shore,” said Mike Madsen, director of Washington operations at DIU. The NSIC also aims to signal to the investment community that the Defense Department is interested in developing dual-use technologies and to provide a foreign investment alternative for hardware companies. In testimony to Congress in March, Mike Griffin, the Pentagon's acquisition chief for research and engineering, said that the new groups will fall to DIU “in an effort to put similarly-focused organizations under a single leadership structure.” Perhaps more importantly, Defense leaders said the new structure will help the Pentagon “hand off” technology with a low readiness level or level of maturity until it is ready for broader adoption. “There are these huge pools of untapped talent,” Plummer said. To take advantage of that talent means going beyond research grants in academia and instead to create a network of hubs and spokes of early stage ventures in approximately 35 communities throughout the country. While DIU has offices in Austin, Boston and Silicon Valley, creating a broader network means the NSIN would have staffers in cities such as Chicago, Miami, Columbus, Boulder, Raleigh, St. Louis and Minneapolis. “It makes the Department accessible in a real way,” Plummer said. Previously, business leaders may see the Pentagon as a “big gray monolith” and “may not even know where the door to this place is.” DIU will continue to focus on artificial intelligence, autonomy, cyber, human systems, and space. The Pentagon asked for $164 million for DIU in its fiscal 2020 budget request. https://www.c4isrnet.com/pentagon/2019/05/13/the-pentagon-wants-to-create-a-broader-network-of-innovators/