Covid-19 : quel impact sur les exportations d’armes en 2020 ?

On the same subject

• 

  November 10, 2024 | International, C4ISR, Security

  Sweden selects Embraer cargo plane, Brazil plans to buy more Saab fighters

• 

  July 23, 2018 | International, C4ISR

  With cyber forces underequipped, DoD turns to rapid prototyping contracting

  By: Mark Pomerleau U.S. Cyber Command's main warrior cadre has been deemed ready for war and now the organization is shifting its focus to readiness and operations. Sources have told Fifth Domain that DoD's cyber warriors lack certain skills, capabilities and even equipment. One source went so far as to say that the list of what these forces can do is short. As a result, the military wants to quickly get these new cyber warriors the tools they need. To do this, they are turning to contracting vehicles such as other transaction authorities and the so-called IT Box construct as a way to skirt the traditional acquisition system, which is often derided as lethargic, bureaucratic and not optimized for the high tempo of the software-centric world. These approaches allow for the government to partner with non-traditional companies for less mature technologies and prototypes meaning solutions, albeit some that are not always 100 percent mature, get to warfighters faster. This approach allows DoD to be more agile and flexible in procuring and equipping, multiple industry sources told Fifth Domain. However, one potential downside to this approach is a lack of competition for this work. What do cyber warriors need? As the command is growing, maturing and standing on its own, it needs training modules, infrastructure to conduct operations on and tools. Leaders say one of the most critical needs of cyber warriors is a training platform. And industry officials add that often the first time cyber warriors face certain techniques is during a mission. This is because of a lack of a holistic and robust training environment, similar to the Army's combat training centers or the Air Force's Red Flag. To change that the Army, on behalf of Cyber Command, is in charge of an effort called the Persistent Cyber Training Environment. The Army, using an OTA approach, is running a series of innovation challenges as a way to prototype capability. This approach would provide an interim solution to cyber warriors while at the same time reduce risk and help the larger program of record. Another capability cyber warriors will need is an operational platform from which to house tools, launch operations and perform command and control. Currently, the Air Force is working this program on behalf of Cyber Command. The Unified Platform, as it's called, is considered one of CYBERCOM's largest and most critical acquisition programs to date. Industry officials have said it is necessary to conduct cyber operations and is critical to national security. The Air Force's acquisition strategy is not totally clear, with some industry sources noting that they are not taking an OTA approach to this critical capability. The service is currently using the General Services Administration's premier enterprise Alliant Government wide Acquisition Contract vehicle in which multiple contractors will be awarded and will compete against each other for individual task orders on the final program. Federal agencies traditionally use Alliant to implement new and innovative technologies. (Potential) Drawbacks Despite being an attractive option to rapidly equip forces, these vehicles come with some risk. Industry officials acknowledge that OTAs were meant for prototyping, research and development and risk reduction for larger programs of record, not as a replacement for procuring large programs and platforms. While Congress has extended the use of OTAs for actual development of production, William LaPlante, senior vice president and general manager for MITRE National Security Sector, calls this “a dodgy area.” LaPlante, who served as assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition,, told Fifth Domain that the OTAs can limit competition. Since these rapid prototyping vehicles enable DoD to work with non-traditional companies that don't have to bring forth fully developed solutions, they tend to favor smaller tech companies as opposed to larger defense contractors. LaPlante said if one subscribes to the philosophy that the best product comes from a full competition, the competition part of these contracting mechanisms is not very clear. Second, he said, going faster means the upfront homework in the way of budgeting, market research and strategy may be neglected. While this work might take a bit of time, if it's not done, he said, the risk of making mistakes increases. Going forward, LaPlante noted that it will be important how blowback and failure is handled because “there's no question mistakes will be made." There is also the issue of integration. With a series of disparate systems, it is unclear who will be the integrator: government or industry? “It's a perpetual discussion of the last 20-30 years: is the government itself strong enough to assume the role of integrator? Probably not. You need some industry partner,” he said. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2018/07/20/with-cyber-forces-underequipped-dod-turns-to-rapid-prototyping-contracting/

• 

  September 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

  Pentagon acquisition boss talks industry, mergers and coronavirus

  Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — A longtime industry executive, Ellen Lord was confirmed as the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment in August 2017. In that role, Lord — who is now the longest serving political appointee at the department from the Trump administration — oversees billions of dollars in weapons procurement and sustainment, while also overseeing the health of the defense industrial base, a particularly important role in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Lord was a keynote speaker at this year's Defense News Conference, where she touched on a number of issues affecting the Department of Defense. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. We're about six months after COVID-19 first hit the defense industry. How do you judge the health of the defense industrial base? We use the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency to track about 22,000 key companies that the department works with. And going back over the last six months, we did have hundreds of companies shut down, but now we're down to only about 30. So that's very, very good news. We monitor them on a daily basis; we look at on-time deliveries, deliveries missed and, most importantly, we listen to what the issues are, really leveraging the industry associations to do a lot of listening. What we are looking for is whether or not we're maintaining war-fighter readiness for our production programs, and then relative to modernization, whether we are hitting key milestones relative to development programs. We have seen some slowdowns. We are carefully monitoring, using monthly metrics, where we are. That's something that I'm actually extremely proud of the team over the last few years — we have developed a very data-driven way of doing business. The Pentagon is seeking billions of dollars from Congress to help fund reimbursements for the defense industry's pandemic-related costs. But we've heard criticism of this from a number of sectors, with some saying financial reports last quarter were not so bad. Why is that funding needed, and why now? All the [quarterly] reports that have come out in large part don't reflect the hits that were taken by business. I would contend that most of the effects of COVID-19 haven't yet been seen because most companies gave their employees time off, they stretched out production, paid a lot of people for working 100 percent when perhaps they were only getting 50 percent of the hours in and so forth. So I think the system has absorbed it up to this point in time. Now when we get to the point where we're having payments and incentive fees and award fees earned, and if we haven't done the deliveries, that's where you're going to see the hit. So I believe there's a bit of a delayed response. We want to make sure that we have a one-time accounting for these major COVID hits — very, very well defined in terms of a period of time, March 15-Sept. 15, that we take a very, very data driven approach [saying]: “Send us a proposal showing what the impact was; we will assess them all at once and get back.” However, we can't do that at this point in time because we have an authorization through Section 3610 [of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act] and so forth, but we don't have an appropriation. We believe we need that appropriation to maintain readiness because if we do not get that, what we are going to find is we are not going to get the number of units delivered, we are not going to maintain war-fighter readiness, we're not going to move forward in modernization. We would like to take the one-time hit and then see where we go from there. Assuming you get the appropriation, much money is needed? When will industry see it? We think it's somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion. We think it would take five to six months because once we got an appropriation, we would go out for a request for proposals, and the larger companies are going to have to flow down those RFPs through their supply chain, gather the data — because again, this has to be a very data-driven drill. So we would get all of that back; we think that would take two to three months. Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once. It isn't going to be a first-in, first-out [situation], and we have to rationalize using the rules we've put in place, what would be reimbursable and what's not. So overall we think five to six months, in terms of a process. We're at about the two-year mark from the executive order 13806 study, which assessed the health of the defense industrial base and included some dire warnings about the supply chain. How has work on fixing those issues gone? We had several areas that we pointed out were problematic, that we were concerned that the U.S. had too great of a dependency on non-friendly nations and that we just didn't have the security and resiliency that we were looking for. In fiscal 2019, we actually had 14 presidential determinations, which is the process you go through to actually say: “Yes, these are areas that are worthy of looking at.” Then we go to get the appropriation to be able to use [the Defense Production Act's Title III authorities]. A number of the areas we looked at were small unmanned aerial systems, rare earth [minerals], that type of thing. When COVID-19 hit, it shone a spotlight on the concern we had with this fragility and helped us tell the story. Because of another executive order coming in declaring a federal emergency, we no longer had to go through the presidential determination route, which is a bit time consuming, to identify areas where we needed to invest. Then [with the pandemic] we had new areas bubble up, probably the most significant of which was aviation propulsion, where we have a number of our key suppliers who are extremely dependent on commercial aviation that was grinding almost to a halt for a while — huge impacts there. So what we did was we were now able to move a little bit more quickly, which is always helpful. And we made a number of awards to aviation companies that literally kept those companies in business, which allowed us to continue to support the war fighter. COVID-19 has helped us accelerate some of those areas. Others are perhaps not getting as much attention as they were pre-COVID-19, looking at our defense industrial base for nuclear modernization for instance, also for hypersonics. But overall, the team is working very hard, and we have put out almost a billion dollars in DPA Title III over the last six months. It sounds like the pandemic may have been beneficial in addressing these long-term issues. What it did was allow us to really put speed in the system, peel away all of what I would call the non-value-added bureaucracy. COVID-19 gave us a burning platform to really demonstrate we could be very responsible in terms of taxpayer dollars, very responsible in terms of security of the war fighter, but move at the speed of relevance to get things done. So I don't want to backslide there. And I want to make sure we really take advantage of all of that. Companies are concerned about being in compliance with the Section 889 rules, which prohibit the government from buying a system that might have Chinese equipment in it from the telecommunications supply chain. Are more waivers for companies possible? We are incredibly supportive of making sure that we don't have Chinese technology in a lot of our telecom systems, which has proven to be a problem in terms of exfiltration of data. So what we did is we got a waiver from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] for noncritical weapon systems. We continue to discuss an extension beyond September of that with them. We are getting waivers on a case-by-case basis, we will look at those. However, we are encouraging industry and we are very, very pleased at how we see industry still stepping up to really get these systems out of their supply chains. So it will be by exception that we will do waivers, and we are looking to really have a clean path through everything. There have been significant mergers and acquisitions during your tenure at the Pentagon. Are you seeing a downside for the department, given the desire for more competition on programs? I actually put a process in place early on, when we are notified of M&A deals, that we go out very formally to all the services and agencies and ask for objective evidence as to whether or not these mergers or acquisitions will constrain competition in any way. We then work very, very closely with either [the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department] on those deals to make sure there are divestitures if needed. Where I'm really focused, and the team is focused, is really getting the small companies going. That's where the predominance of our innovation comes from. That's what bubbles up to these larger companies. So we are holding all kinds of webinars and meetings connecting not only our traditional defense industrial base, small company partners, but nontraditional [firms] with our DoD efforts. We're partnering with the services to get more of that activity. So we want that diverse group coming in, and I'm really excited about what I see coming up through. That doesn't sound like you have many concerns about what you've seen. We watch very carefully. And at this point, we think we've made some smart divestitures on some of those. And we like competition. It's our friend. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2020/09/21/pentagon-acquisition-boss-talks-industry-mergers-and-coronavirus/