Cybersecurity CPEs: Unraveling the What, Why & How

On the same subject

• 

  July 15, 2024 | International, Naval, Land, Security

  Japan reemerges as an Asia-Pacific military power - Army Technology

  The country's new Defence White Paper outlines its military plans, including taking primary responsibility for national defence from 2027.

• 

  July 10, 2018 | International, Naval

  Has the US Navy thought this new frigate through? New report raises questions.

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is rapidly moving toward procuring the first hull in its new class of frigate in 2020, but a new report is raising questions about whether the Navy has done detailed analysis about what it needs out of the ship before barging ahead. The Navy may not have done an adequate job of analyzing gaps and capabilities shortfalls before it set itself on a fast-track to buying the so-called FFG(X) as an adaptation from a parent design, said influential Navy analyst Ron O'Rourke in a new Congressional Research Service report. In essence, the CRS report questions whether the Navy looked at what capabilities the service already has in the fleet, what capabilities it's missing and whether the FFG(X) is the optimal solution to address any identified shortfalls. O'Rourke suggests Congress push the Navy on “whether procuring a new class of FFGs is the best or most promising general approach for addressing the identified capability gaps and mission needs, and whether the Navy has performed a formal, rigorous analysis of this issue, as opposed to relying solely on subjective judgments of Navy or [Defense Department] leaders.” ““Subjective judgments, though helpful, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding the best or most promising general approach,” the report reads. “Potential alternative general approaches for addressing identified capability gaps and mission needs in this instance include (to cite a few possibilities) modified LCSs, FFs, destroyers, aircraft, unmanned vehicles, or some combination of these platforms.” The Navy is looking to adapt its FFG(X) from an existing design such as Fincantieri's FREMM, one of the two existing littoral combat ships or the Coast Guard's national security cutter as a means of getting updated capabilities into a small surface combatant and into the fleet quickly. A better approach, O'Rourke suggests, would be to make a formal, rigorous analysis of alternatives to its current course. Failure to do so has led to a series of setbacks with the Navy's current small surface combatant program, the LCS. “The Navy did not perform a formal, rigorous analysis of this kind prior to announcing the start of the LCS program in November 2001, and this can be viewed as a root cause of much of the debate and controversy that attended the LCS program, and of the program's ultimate restructurings in February 2014 and December 2015,” O'Rourke writes. O'Rourke further suggests the Navy is relying too much on subjective opinions of Navy and Defense Department leaders, instead of a legitimate analysis. And indeed, the Navy has made rapid acquisition of the new ship the hallmark of the program. “Subjective judgments can be helpful, particularly in terms of capturing knowledge and experience that is not easily reduced to numbers, in taking advantage of the ‘wisdom of the crowd,‘ and in coming to conclusions and making decisions quickly,” O'Rourke argues. “On the other hand, a process that relies heavily on subjective judgments can be vulnerable to group-think, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding capability gaps and mission needs, and, depending on the leaders involved, can emphasize those leaders' understanding of the Navy's needs.” Read the full report here. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/09/has-the-us-navy-thought-this-new-frigate-through-new-report-raises-questions/

• 

  February 19, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval

  Here’s a progress update on CAE’s big shore training facility being built for the UAE

  By: David B. Larter ABU DHABI – A large shore training facility designed to facilitate training for United Arab Emirates sailors and watch teams is tracking on its 2020 delivery date, while hitting a few snags along the way, according to the Canadian firm CAE. The facility, which was announced as part of $113 million in contacts with the UAE's general headquarters in 2016, is approaching critical design review and will have systems ready to use by the end of this year, said Ian Bell, CAE's vice president for the Middle East and Asia in a media briefing at the International Defense and Exhibition Conference in Abu Dhabi. “The building is making very good progress, but will probably be a little bit late,” Bell said. “Some of our development has been delayed through data availability. We're at the point where we are getting close to critical design review, and we hope to step the first ready-for-use later this year. But the ready-for-training isn't due until May of 2020.” The contract is estimated to bring in about $450 million over 15 years, according to the 2016 contract announcement. The center is designed to give UAE sailors training from the individual watch stander to whole watch teams training to fight the ship as a unit. It is also designed to link with shore stations, command and control centers and ships at sea to provide training on the go. “It's a whole turnkey solution for everything from individual seaman training to a whole flotilla,” Bell said. “It will be integrated with various ships linked to naval helicopters and command and control so they can also feed as players into the system.” The first bridge simulators for the center are installed at CAE Montreal for testing, Bell said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/idex/2019/02/18/heres-a-progress-update-on-caes-big-shore-training-facility-being-built-for-the-uae/