December 2, 2022 | International, C4ISR
Defense startup Anduril secures $1.5 billion investment
Company to use funding for development of "autonomous defense capabilities."
May 12, 2020 | International, Land, C4ISR
COVID Disrupts Network Tests – But Army Presses On
The Army pushed hard to field-test new tech with real soldiers. Then came the coronavirus. Now the service will have to rely much more on lab testing.
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 11, 2020 at 5:11 PM
WASHINGTON: The Army is taking a calculated risk to field much-needed network upgrades known as Capability Set 21 on time next year. To do that, the service needs to start buying radios, computers, satellite terminals, and much more in bulk this year so it can start fielding them to four combat infantry brigades in early 2021.
Many Army weapons programs are staying on schedule because they're still doing digital design work and long-term R&D, much of which can be done online. But Capability Set 21 is so far along that much of its technology was already in field tests with real soldiers — testing that has been badly disrupted by precautions against the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a result, said Maj. Gen. David Bassett, Program Executive Officer for Command, Control, & Communications – Tactical (PEO-C3T), the Army may have to rely on more testing data from the lab to make up for limited testing in the field.
“As soon as we possibly can, we're going to get this back in the hands of soldiers,” Basset told the C4ISRNet online conference last week. “In the meantime, we know an awful lot from the lab-based risk reduction that we've done.”
“The risk,” he said, “is pretty manageable.”
Risk & Return
The field tests done before the pandemic, combined with extensive lab tests, should be enough to prove the technology will work, Bassett said. In fact, the Army already largely decided what technologies to buy for the upgrade package known as Capability Set 21, he said. What it still wanted soldiers to figure out in field tests, he said, was how they would use it in the field. That feedback from those “soldier touchpoints” would help both fine-tune the tech itself and figure out exactly how much to buy of each item – say, single-channel radios versus multi-channel ones — for each unit.
Going ahead without all the planned field-testing means the Army will have to make more fixes after the equipment is already fielded, a more laborious, time-consuming, and costly process than fixing it in prototype before going into mass production. It may also mean the Army initially buys more of some kit than its units actually need and less than needed of other items. But CS 21 is a rolling roll-out of new tech to four brigades a year, not a once-and-done big bang, Bassett explained. So if they buy too much X and too little Y for the first brigade or two, he said, they can adjust the amounts in the next buy and redistribute gear among the units as needed.
It's important to make clear that the Army's new technologies have already gone through much more hands-on field testing from actual soldiers than any traditional program, and have improved as a result. In the most dramatic example — not from CS 21 itself but a closely related system — blunt feedback from soldiers and quick fixes by engineers led to major improvements in prototype IVAS augmented reality goggles, a militarized Microsoft HoloLens that can now show soldiers everything from live drone feeds to a cross-hairs for targeting their rifle.
Doing such “soldier touchpoints” early and often throughout the development process is central to the 20-year-month Army Futures Command's attempt to fix the service's notoriously disfunctional acquisition system. But to stem the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus, the Army – like businesses, schools, and churches around the world – has dramatically cut down on routine activities.
“Units are either not training, or they're training with significant control measures put in place – social distancing, protective equipment, and things like that,” said Maj. Gen. Peter Gallagher, head of the Network Cross Functional Team at Army Futures Command. That's disrupted the “access to soldiers and the feedback loop that's been so critical to our efforts.”
Nevertheless, the Army feels it has enough data to move ahead. It may also assess that the risk of moving ahead – even it requires some inefficient fixes later – is lower than the risk of leaving combat units with their existing network tech, which is less capable, less secure against hacking and less resilient against physical or electronic attack.
2021 And Beyond
Capability Set 21 focuses on the Army's light infantry brigades, which don't have many vehicles to carry heavy-duty equipment, as well as rapidly deployable communications units called Expeditionary Signal Battalions. It includes a significant increase in the number of ground terminals for satellite communications, the generals said, though not quite as many as they'd hoped to be able to afford.
It'll be followed by Capability Set 23, focused on medium and heavy mechanized units riding in 20-plus ton 8×8 Strykers and 40-plus-ton tracked vehicles. While units with lots of vehicles can carry much more gear, they also cover much larger distances in a day. That means CS 23 will include much more long-range communications through satellites in Low and Medium Earth Orbit, “which give us significantly more bandwidth at lower latency,” Gallagher said. “In some cases, it's almost having fiber optic cable through a space-based satellite link.”
Even with CS 21 still in final testing, the Army's already gotten started on CS 23. It's reviewed over 140 white paper proposals submitted by interested companies in January, held “shark tank” pitch sessions with the most promising prospects in March, and is now negotiating with vendors.
An Army slide summing up the systems being issued as part of the Integrated Tactical Network. Note the mix of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) and military-unique Program Of Record (POR) technologies.
There has been some impact from COVID,” Gallagher said, “[but] we will have all the contracts probably let no later than July.” The chosen technologies will go into prototype testing next year, with a Preliminary Design Review of the whole Capability Set in April and a Critical Design Review in April 2022.
Further Capability Set upgrades are planned for every two years indefinitely, each focusing on different key technologies and different parts of the Army.
Meanwhile, Bassett's PEO shop is urgently pushing out more of its existing network tech to regular, Reserve, and National Guard troops deployed nationwide to help combat COVID-19, Bassett said. That includes everything from satellite communications links to military software on an Android phone, known as the Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK). Originally developed to help troops navigate and coordinate on battlefields, ATAK is now being upgraded to provide public health data like rapid updates on coronavirus cases.
“Any soldier that was responding to this COVID crisis that needed network equipment, we wanted them to have a one-stop shop,” Bassett told the conference. “They would come to us and we'd go get it for them.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/covid-disrupts-network-tests-but-army-presses-on
On the same subject
-
-
October 30, 2020 | International, Aerospace
UAE could get up to 50 F-35s in $10B sale
By: Joe Gould , Aaron Mehta , and Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. State Department is backing the sale of as many as 50 F-35 joint strike fighters to the United Arab Emirates in an arms deal worth an estimated $10.4 billion, according to multiple reports. The news came as the Trump administration informally briefed Congress on its plan to sell the advanced F-35 fighter to the United Arab Emirates Thursday. It follows weeks of speculation and behind-the-scenes debates about how to structure an F-35 deal with the UAE without cutting into Israel's qualitative military edge. If the sale is permitted by Congress and the UAE opts to buy the full number of F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variants covered by the deal, it would have parity with Israel, which has 50 F-35 “Adir” jets under contract, although the country is considering buying 25 more. (The quantities and values of such deals often change from initial estimates.) Amid reports the Trump administration is fast-tracking the F-35 sales, key Democratic lawmakers are continuing to urge a deliberate approach, citing concerns for Israel's security and the security of the warplane's sensitive technology. “This technology would significantly change the military balance in the Gulf and affect Israel's military edge," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a game-changing stealth platform boasting advanced strike capability and unique sensor technology. The export of this aircraft requires very careful consideration and Congress must analyze all the ramifications. Rushing these sales is not in anyone's interest.” The consultations came days after Israel said last week it will not oppose the U.S. sale of “certain weapon systems,” widely considered to mean the F-35. That followed an agreement between Israel and the United States to upgrade its capabilities to preserve its edge. Engel said he plans to weigh the U.S. legal obligation to maintain Israel's military superiority in the region, as well the question of whether the sale would drive demands from other Middle Eastern nations to buy the F-35 in exchange for normalized ties with Israel. (The Trump administration recently brokered such a pact between Israel and the UAE.) “Israel currently has exclusive access in the region to the F-35, which has guaranteed its military edge over the last several years. As Congress reviews this sale, it must be clear that changes to the status quo will not put Israel's military advantage at risk,” Engel said. “This technology also must be safeguarded from our greatest global adversaries. With Russia and China active in the region, the American people will require unimpeachable assurances that our most advanced military capabilities will be protected.” For decades, the State Department has informally consulted with the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs committees before formally notifying Congress of sales, which affords lawmakers a chance to block them. Though lawmakers typically consider such deliberations sensitive and rarely speak publicly about them, Engel broke the news Congress had been informally notified. Assistant Secretary Bureau of Political-Military Affairs R. Clarke Cooper told reporters Wednesday the department plans to honor that process. Though Reuters has reported there is a goal to have a letter of agreement between the U.S. and the UAE by Dec. 2, Cooper said “there are no dates associated with the work that's being done.” He declined to provide specifics of a potential deal and the State Department declined to comment on Thursday. F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin referred questions to the State Department. Israeli opposition would be fatal to the deal in Congress, where Israel enjoys strong support. Two key Democrats introduced legislation earlier this month that would place restrictions on F-35 sales to Middle Eastern nations to address their concerns about both the Israel's security and the security of F-35 technology. On Thursday, Engel invited colleagues to join him in legislation, “to ensure that the sale of these types of weapons adhere to our most important national security goals.” https://www.defensenews.com/2020/10/29/uae-could-get-up-to-50-f-35s-in-10b-sale/
-
September 25, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
Defense industry fighting DoD proposal to change performance payments
By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's proposed plan to lower the rate of progress and performance payments some companies receive on defense contracts is sending shockwaves through the industry and invited a backlash from three large trade associations. To incentivize defense firms to work more quickly and more efficiently for the taxpayer, Pentagon leaders want to create a tiered system that recognizes high performing companies with higher performance-based payments. Contractors, however, are balking at the Pentagon's efforts to make them more accountable. While obscure to the general public, the proposed rule changes have rattled government contractors, which argue they would choke off funding for innovation, shackle them with more bureaucracy, increase the cost of military equipment— and hurt profits. The baseline performance- and progress-based payment rate for larger companies would be reset from 80 percent to 50 percent, with incremental increases or decreases based on new criteria proposed by DoD. If a contractor, for instance, delivers end items on time, hits milestone schedules, or avoids serious corrective action requests, it would win 10 percent bumps for each. (Small businesses would have their own schedule of incentives.) The National Defense Industrial Association is calling on DoD to rescind the regulation and collaborate with industry to create a different rule. One objection it has is the proposed rule would determine payment rates based on companies' overall performance, as opposed to contract by contract. “The marching orders from Congress is we have to be faster, more innovative, to do better for the warfighter,” said NDIA Senior Vice President for Policy Wesley Hallman. But, under the proposed rule, a company that wants to take on a high-risk project that fails, “will later be judged on that thing the following December. They're incentivized to take a low-risk approach.” Though Section 831 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act encourages DoD to use performance payments, NDIA argues the rule violate's the law's intent and that lessening companies' cash flow would slow payments to subcontractors and sap funding for independent research and development. “We're doing our best to let them know how this will hurt industry,” said NDIA Director of Regulatory Policy Corbin Evans. The trade group's comments were submitted at a public meeting Sept. 14 to consider changes the Pentagon proposed in August to federal acquisitions rules, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement. The Defense Department is holding another public meeting, Oct. 10, before the public comment period ends on Oct. 23. Both the Professional Services Council and the Aerospace Industries Association, which more than 300 companies in the aerospace and defense industry, also offered presentations in opposition. The move toward better stewardship of taxpayer dollars comes amid record Pentagon budget growth and amid a reorganization of the Pentagon's acquisition, technology and logistics office, now due to finish in a few months. The move falls in line with Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord's efforts to halve the timeline of major defense acquisition programs, which are notoriously slow. “I believe the lifeblood of most industry is cash flow, so what we will do is regulate the percentage of payments or the amount of profit that can be achieved through what type of performance they demonstrate by the numbers,” Lord said in a Defense News interview last week. Hence, “we're going to begin to reward companies through profit or through progress or performance payments, as a function of how they manage all of that, as well as quality and delivery and a variety of other things,” Lord said. Though it's unclear whether DoD will formally move ahead with the rule by a Dec. 1 deadline, investors have already responded negatively to a reports on the changes, according to aerospace and defense sector analysts at Cowen and Company. “It will be a scramble for companies and DoD to compile the necessary data to evaluate the rate request. Under the current draft rule, DoD would need to evaluate the rate request in just one month for all its suppliers,” Roman Schweizer, of Cowen and Company, said in a note to investors Friday. “We suspect that will be very hard the first time and suggests this year may be too hard.” Still, Cowen analyst Cai von Rumohr downplayed the near-term effects, especially beyond the major primes. He speculated the proposed rule change will have negligible impact on contractor results in 2019 since it doesn't apply to any current contracts; it's very unlikely to go into effect before 2020, if ever; it will not apply to time and materials and fixed-price commercial terms contracts, and because it will only apply to some cost-plus contracts. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/09/24/defense-industry-fighting-dod-proposal-to-change-performance-payments