Back to news

July 25, 2019 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

David Norquist has one word for you: Analytics

By:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration's nominee for deputy defense secretary wants the Pentagon to apply data analytics and artificial intelligence to tackle jobs as diverse as technology development, the Pentagon audit and maintenance of the F-35 fighter jet.

More broadly, David Norquist, the Pentagon comptroller who for most of this year has served as acting deputy defense secretary, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. needs to more heavily invest in developing technology to execute the 2018 National Defense Strategy. The strategy focuses on competition with Russia and China.

The strategy will be “hampered without appropriate funding, development and timely fielding of emerging technologies, notably cyber, space, artificial intelligence, and missiles,” Norquist said in written responses to questions posed in advance by the committee. He called modernizing the military to compete, deter and, if needed, prevail in a high-end fight one of the job's most significant challenges.

Per the 2017 defense policy law, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics was split between new undersecretaries of defense for research and engineering (R&E) and acquisition and sustainment (A&S). The R&E office was stood up specifically to push new technologies forward more quickly.

Yet, the Pentagon “has made very little progress” to manifest those “key” changes, meant in part to help the Pentagon better harness advanced technologies, SASC ranking member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., cautioned Norquist. He obtained Norquist's commitment to ensure the department implements the law.

SASC Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Reed cited the need to better manage the Pentagon's acquisitions bureaucracy, acknowledging that a pending bipartisan budget agreement has created new headroom and stability.

“Today, we find ourselves in a new and different moment in American security,” Inhofe said. “The American people take our military superiority for granted. China and Russia have passed us in a lot of key areas that we have discussed.”

“Our overmatch in areas a decade ago was very clear. That overmatch has diminished,” Reed said, adding that the Department of Defense must extend its tech development efforts into academia and the private sector.

Norquist also touted the administration's request for a $32 billion increase in research and development, to include cyber, missile range, hypersonics and lasers — but he called out artificial intelligence as unique.

“Artificial Intelligence is different because the potential benefits are less clear; you know what you're going to get with a hypersonic missile,” he said. “But artificial intelligence has the potential to change a lot about how we use [unmanned aerial vehicles] and other items. That puts an emphasis on analytical skills, researching and prototyping."

In a related exchange, Norquist touted a DoD project to harness AI in disasters to find people in need of rescue through video analysis — and said he wants more work with the private sector on similar projects.

Norquist's hearing comes on the heels of the Senate's overwhelming confirmation of Mark Esper, the former Army secretary, as the 27th secretary of defense. Confirmation for Norquist and Esper, who replaces Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, is expected to hasten an end to the vacancies in other top Pentagon jobs.

The hearing lasted 100 minutes and went smoothly, with the tone set at the very start, when Inhofe said he would vote for him. Inhofe said he had recommended Norquist to the president as an ideal No. 2 for a Pentagon with more than a dozen open civilian positions at the top.

“I remember telling the president it doesn't matter who's secretary of defense,” Inhofe said, “as long as you have Norquist.”

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/07/24/norquist-has-one-word-for-you-analytics/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2007.25.19&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

On the same subject

  • Winners and Losers in the Fiscal 2022 U.S. Defense Budget Request | Aviation Week Network

    June 8, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Winners and Losers in the Fiscal 2022 U.S. Defense Budget Request | Aviation Week Network

    The fiscal 2022 budget request, the first released by President Joe Biden, did not substantially depart from the priorities of the previous administration. But some of the priorities were apparent—including nuclear delivery vehicles, hypersonic weapons and research and development. Conversely, procurement of aircraft platforms took a hit, and the Air Force is returning to Capitol Hill with a long list of recommended aircraft retirements. 

  • Lockheed Martin Fields Safety Upgrade For F-35A Fleet

    July 25, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Lockheed Martin Fields Safety Upgrade For F-35A Fleet

    By Steve Trimble A crash-preventing upgrade for the Lockheed Martin F-35A is now being fielded after a nine-month test phase, program officials announced on July 24. The Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS) is being integrated on the U.S. Air Force variant first, but will also spread to the Navy and Marine Corps variants. Auto-GCAS, which is already fielded on the F-16, prevents crashes caused when a pilot partially or fully loses consciousness during aggressive flight maneuvers. The system can detect an imminent collision, take control and steer the aircraft to a safe heading. The Air Force credits Auto-GCAS for preventing eight F-16 crashes since 2014. “Auto-GCAS is a proven system that is long overdue,” said Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, F-35 program executive officer. https://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheed-martin-fields-safety-upgrade-f-35a-fleet?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190725_AW-05_516&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000015176279&utm_campaign=20501&utm_medium=email&elq2=71640d6c1c2a404d87e172f000eaa32d

  • How did the two offerings competing to be the US Army’s future engine measure up?

    June 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    How did the two offerings competing to be the US Army’s future engine measure up?

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Cost appears to have played a major role in the Army's decision to pick GE Aviation's T901 engine for its future helicopter engine, based on a look at documents laying out the service's post-award analysis, obtained by Defense News. Yet, other factors not shown could have also contributed to the Army's choice, which the Government Accountability Office upheld following a protest from losing team Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC) — a partnership between Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney. The GAO is expected to release a redacted version of its decision next week, which could shed more light on how the Army decided to move forward with GE. While the cost of GE'S engine seems to have been a deciding factor, the document outlining the service's criteria to determine a winning engine design to move into the engineering and manufacturing development phase states that “all non-cost/price factors when combined are significantly more important than cost/price factor.” According to that chart, the Army said it would primarily measure the engine submissions against its engine design and development, followed by cost/price, followed by life-cycle costs and then small business participation in order of importance. The Army assessed ATEC's and GE's technical risk as good and gave ATEC a risk rating of low while it gave GE a risk rating of moderate when considering engineering design and development for each offering. Both GE and ATEC had moderate risk ratings when it came to engine design and performance. And while GE received a technical risk rating of moderate for component design and systems test and evaluation, ATEC received low risk ratings for both. Almost all other technology risk assessments and risk ratings were the same for both engine offerings. GE scored “outstanding” in platform integration capabilities. Based off the chart, it appears ATEC won, so its likely the documents are not an exhaustive representation of how the Army decided to move forward with GE. While both ATEC and GE offered prices within the Army's requirements, GE came in 30 percent lower in cost. And according to Brig. Gen. Thomas Todd, the program executive officer for aviation, in an interview with Defense News in April, GE was also working on trying to shrink the timeline within the EMD phase by roughly a year. But, in ATEC's view, the charts show it had offered the best value product to the Army. ATEC's president, Craig Madden, told Defense News that the company took the Army's selection criteria laid out in the request for proposals seriously across the board from engineering design and development factors to cost to even small business participation, where it scored higher than GE in the analysis chart. “We did come in higher in cost but this was considered a best value evaluation and not lowest price, technically acceptable,” Madden said. “I think low price is good for a plastic canteen or a bayonet, it's not good for a highly technical turbine engine.” And despite coming in at a higher cost, Jerry Wheeler, ATEC's vice president said, the up front cost in the EMD phase will be higher but the delta would shrink when considering life-cycle costs of both engine offerings. Both ATEC and GE received good technical ratings and were given risk ratings of low. When just going by the chart, GE's four moderate risk ratings in key categories means “they could have disruption in schedule, increased cost and degradation of performance,” Madden said. He added ATEC was also focused on lowering risk, so that, although the Army offered incentives to finish the EMD phase earlier than 66 months, ATEC presented a plan to complete at 66 months with a plan to look at acceleration wherever possible. ATEC is now pushing to be a part of the EMD phase, essentially extending the competition, so that more data on engines can be garnered. The Army had periodically weighed keeping the EMD phase competitive with two vendors, but ultimately chose to downselect to one. For GE, the Army made the right decision and had enough data to do so. “The U.S. Army competitively selected GE's T901 engine over ATEC T900 engine after more than 12 years of development,” David Wilson told Defense News in a statement. “Those 12 years included the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program, during which both companies ran tow full engine tests,” he said. Additionally, both companies executed a 24-month technology maturation and risk reduction contract where GE self-funded and successfully completed and tested a third engine, a full-sized T901 prototype engine, with successful tests on all components, Wilson said. “We've done three full-engine tests and provided an unprecedented amount of test data to the Army for them to determine which engine was the best to move forward with in EMD,” he added. Funding a second engine through EMD would cost more than twice as much and delay critical Army modernization by at least two years, Wilson argued. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/07/how-did-the-two-offerings-competing-to-be-the-us-armys-future-engine-measure-up/

All news