October 8, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

Democrats face internal ‘fight’ on defense spending, says Smith

WASHINGTON ― The Democratic split over the size of future defense budgets will come to a head in the new Congress, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., predicted Tuesday.

The outcome of the long-simmering dispute would take on higher stakes if some pre-election polling becomes a reality and Democrats retake Congress and the White House. Though President Donald Trump and his supporters claim the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left, Smith's remarks suggest the party's future direction, at least on defense spending, is not yet settled.

Instead of slashing next year's $740 billion defense budget, as some progressives want, Smith is pushing, “a rational Democratic, progressive national security strategy,” as he called it. That stance seems to align Smith with his party's pragmatic standard-bearer, Joe Biden, who's said he doesn't foresee major defense cuts, if elected.

“I don't think that rational policy involves 20 percent defense cut, but that fight is going to be had,” Smith said at an event hosted by George Mason University. “There are extremists on the right and extremists on the left, and what I'm trying to do is say, ‘Let's go for pragmatic problem solving.' I don't see extremism solving problems.”

If Democrats are swept into power Nov. 3, it will be by voters opposed to President Donald Trump from across the political spectrum, Smith said. To hold on that mandate, Democrats would need to govern with a broad coalition and not overreach from the left on issues like defense.

“Okay, we can win an election because people are appalled by Donald Trump,” Smith said, “but that doesn't mean that they're endorsing us in any sort of huge, dramatic way.”

After the House passed an early version of last year's defense policy bill without Republicans aboard, negotiations to reconcile it with theWhite House and GOP-held Senate dragged for months before a compromise bill passed Congress with progressive priorities stripped from it, leaving them dissatisfied.

This year, many of the progressives' priorities were deflected from the House's version of the bill, and it passed the chamber with support from more than half of Republicans and more than two-thirds of Democrats.

Military spending remains popular with most Republicans, and they largely opposed progressive amendments in the House and Senate this summer to slash the authorization bill by 10 percent. HASC member Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., called the House amendment, “a deeply irresponsible stunt.”

Biden and congressional Democrats are already under pressure from progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who have been part of a campaign to direct spending away from the military in favor of healthcare, education and jobs. Massive spending on national security, they say, didn't protect the country from COVID-19.

“You have a progressive movement in the party now that is really motivated and mobilized around foreign policy and national security issues, and that's not going away,” Matt Duss, a Sanders foreign policy aide, told Defense News last month. “That is something a President Biden will have to work with, and I think his team understands that.”

As both Biden, Trump and lawmakers of both parties have called for the U.S. to extricate itself from the Mideast and end the “endless wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Smith said it's important to educate a war-weary American people about why it's unwise to retreat from the world stage ― marked by hotspots in Libya, Syria and West Africa.

“We've got to make the case to them: ‘Here's why the defense budget is what it is, here's why we're trying to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish, and here's why it's in your best interest,'” Smith said. “And we're going to be very aggressive about having public hearings and public discussions to listen to people, to listen to those concerns and try to address them.”

The Pentagon's five-year defense plan indicates it will request flat defense spending after 2021, and ― amid pandemic-related expenses and historic deficits ― the budget is widely expected to stay flat regardless of who is president. Smith pretty much echoed that view Tuesday.

“I think the reasonable assumption is yeah, the defense budget is going to be flat for a while ― and there is no reason on Earth in my view that we cannot defend the United States of America for $700 to $740 billion,” Smith said. “So I think the better question, the question to focus on, is how do we get more out of it?”

On that one, Smith echoed some ideas from his committee's bipartisan Future of Defense Task Force. Its report emphasized the need, in order to compete with a surging China, to divest from some legacy programs and heavily invest in artificial intelligence, among other potentially game-changing technologies.

Citing a spate of acquisition failures, Smith said Washington has to work with its defense contractors “about how we spend our money and the results we get for that money.” He also acknowledged the need to protect key contractors stressed by the pandemic's economic impacts and strengthen the industrial base overall.

Smith defended the Pentagon's allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in pandemic relief funding for items like jet and submarine parts instead of increasing the country's supply of medical equipment.

The remarks seemed to set him at odds with liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who have asked the Defense inspector general to look into the department's “reported misuse” of funds. The Democrat-led House Oversight and Reform Committee, Financial Services Committee, and select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis are conducting a joint investigation.

“Three committees in Congress are now investigating this, and I'm not one of them because there's nothing to investigate here, in my view,” Smith said. “This was part of the CARES Act: We gave a billion dollars to DoD to deal with COVID-related expenses. Very specifically, it said one of the COVID related expenses you could deal with was the defense industrial base, which they did. And now we're chewing on them for doing that.”

Smith said the Pentagon did “nothing illegal,” but he suggested it's reasonable to explore whether DoD balanced the money it received appropriately and whether its payments to large contractors are flowing to smaller, more vulnerable firms, as they should.

“I think it is important to make sure we keep the industrial base going,” Smith said, “but there's going to be pressure on that [decision].”

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/10/07/democrats-face-internal-fight-on-defense-spending-says-smith/

On the same subject

January 22, 2019 | International, C4ISR

Googlers headline new commission on AI and national security
By: Kelsey D. Atherton Is $10 million and 22 months enough to shape the future of artificial intelligence? Probably not, but inside the fiscal 2019 national defense policy bill is a modest sum set aside for the creation and operations of a new National Security Commission for Artificial Intelligence. And in a small way, that group will try. The commission's full membership, announced Jan. 18, includes 15 people across the technology and defense sectors. Led by Eric Schmidt, formerly of Google and now a technical adviser to Google parent company Alphabet, the commission is co-chaired by Robert Work. former undersecretary of defense who is presently at the Center for New American Security. The group is situated as independent within the executive branch, and its scope is broad. The commission is to look at the competitiveness of the United States in artificial intelligence, how the US can maintain a technological advantage in AI, keep an eye on foreign developments and investments in AI, especially as related to national security. In addition, the authorization for the commission tasks it with considering means to stimulate investment in AI research and AI workforce development. The commission is expected to consider the risks of military uses of AI by the United States or others, and the ethics related to AI and machine learning as applied to defense. Finally, it is to look at how to establish data standards across the national security space, and to consider how the evolving technology can be managed. All of this has been discussed in some form in the national security community for months, or years, but now, a formal commission will help lay out a blue print. That is several tall orders, all of which will lead to at least three reports. The first report is set by law to be delivered no later than February 2019, with annual reports to follow in August of 2019 and 2020. The commission is set to wrap up its work by October 2020. Inside the authorization is a definition of artificial intelligence to for the commission to work from. Or, well, five definitions: Any artificial system that performs tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight, or that can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets. An artificial system developed in computer software, physical hardware, or other context that solves tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action. An artificial system designed to think or act like a human, including cognitive architectures and neural networks. A set of techniques, including machine learning that is designed to approximate a cognitive task. An artificial system designed to act rationally, including an intelligent software agent or embodied robot that achieves goals using perception, planning, reasoning, learning, communicating, decision-making, and acting. Who will be the people tasked with navigating AI and the national security space? Mostly the people already developing and buying the technologies that make up the modern AI sector. Besides Schmidt, the list includes several prominent players from the software and AI industries including Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz, Director of Microsoft Research Eric Horvitz, CEO of Amazon Web Services Andy Jassy, and Head of Google Cloud AI Andrew Moore. After 2018's internal protests in Google, Microsoft, and Amazon over the tech sector's involvement in Pentagon contracts, especially at Google, one might expect to see some skepticism of AI use in national security from Silicon Valley leadership. Instead, Google, which responded to employee pressure by declining to renew its Project Maven contract, is functionally represented twice, by Moore and functionally by Schmidt. Academia is also present on the commission, with a seat held by Dakota State University president. Jose-Marie Griffiths. CEO Ken Ford will represent Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, which is tied to Florida's State University program. Caltech and NASA will be represented on the commission by the supervisor of Jet Propulsion Lab's AI group, Steve Chien. Intelligence sector will be present at the table in the form of In-Q-Tel CEO Christ Darby and former Director of Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity Jason Matheny. Rounding out the commission is William Mark, the director of the information and computing sciences division at SRI, a pair of consultants: Katrina McFarland of Cypress International and Gilman Louie of Alsop Louie Partners. Finally, Civil society groups are represented by Open Society Foundation fellow Mignon Clyburn. Balancing the security risks, military potential, ethical considerations, and workforce demands of the new and growing sector of machine cognition is a daunting task. Finding a way to bend the federal government to its conclusions will be tricky in any political climate, though perhaps especially so in the present moment, when workers in the technological sector are vocal about fears of the abuse of AI and the government struggles to clearly articulate technology strategies. The composition of the commission suggests that whatever conclusions are reached by the commission will be agreeable to the existing technology sector, amenable to the intelligence services, and at least workable by academia. Still, the proof is in the doing, and anyone interested in how the AI sector thinks the federal government should think about AI for national security should look forward to the commission's initial report. https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2019/01/18/googlers-dominate-new-comission-on-ai-and-national-security/
December 6, 2019 | International, Naval

Coast Guard to Re-Compete Multi-Billion Dollar Offshore Patrol Cutter Contract
By: Ben Werner This post was updated to accurately reflect the size of the Offshore Patrol Cutter contract the Coast Guard is re-competing. An earlier version of this post included an incorrect number of hulls included in the re-compete. The Coast Guard is recompeting its potentially $10.5 billion Offshore Patrol Cutter contract because the program risks falling fatally behind schedule due to hurricane damage to the shipyard initially awarded the contract. The program has already slipped nearly a year behind schedule and could cost an additional $659 million to finish just the first four OPCs contracted to Eastern Shipbuilding Group as part of a nine-hull deal awarded in 2016, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. To reign-in costs and try getting the program back on schedule, the Coast Guard is now taking the extraordinary measure of recompeting the entire contract for OPC hulls five through 25. The 25-hull OPC fleet is intended to replace the Coast Guard's current fleet of 29 medium-endurance cutters, some of which were built during the Vietnam War. The Coast Guard previously set a target cost of $310 million per cutter. The service is asking potential bidders to provide analysis comparing their anticipated costs with this target for building the six OPCs Friday is the deadline for contractors to provide comments on an OPC industry studies statement of work. The study, along with an industry day scheduled for next Wednesday, is intended to give the Coast Guard an assessment of the technical effort, cost risks and schedule risks associated with recompeting the OPC contract. “These activities will provide fresh insight into the current state of the shipbuilding industrial base and inform the Coast Guard's way forward on a re-compete strategy to complete the OPC program of record,” Brian Olexy, the communication manager for the Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate, told USNI News in an email. The Coast Guard intends to purchase up to 25 OPCs making this the service's largest acquisition program. However, the current prime contractor, Panama City, Fla.-based Eastern Shipbuilding Group, is having a hard time fulfilling the contract due to damage caused in 2018 by Hurricane Michael. Eastern Shipbuilding officials could not be reached for comment at the time of this post. In September 2016, the Coast Guard awarded Eastern Shipbuilding Group a contract to build the future USCGC Argus (WMSM-915) with options to build up to nine OPCs. Eastern beat General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Bollinger Shipyards to land the design and construction contract. The average purchase cost for OPCs is about $421 million per ship, according to the CRS report. The first OPC, Argus, was funded in Fiscal Year 2018. The second OPC, the future USCGC Chase (WMSM-916) and long-lead-time materials for the third OPC were funded in the FY 2019. Eastern Shipbuilding was just about to start building Argus and was gathering materials to start building Chase when Hurricane Michael hit the Florida panhandle, USNI News reported in October 2018. Workers evacuated from the area and were slow to return. When they did, many took jobs rebuilding nearby Tyndall Air Force Base, which also suffered substantial damage from the hurricane, according to a statement released by Sen. Marco Rubio (R.-Fla.). Rubio supported a plan to modify Eastern Shipbuilding's contract with the Coast Guard. In October, the Coast Guard asked Congress for extraordinary relief from the contract, on behalf of Eastern Shipbuilding. The Coast Guard plan would allow Eastern Shipbuilding to continue building the first four OPCs but would move forward with seeking new bidders to build out the fleet, Adm. Karl Schultz, the commandant of the Coast Guard, said during an event co-hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute. Lawmakers, though, did not sound too receptive to the plan. Congressional leaders detailed their concerns in a bipartisan letter to the Coast Guard sent Nov. 25, from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.); the chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; ranking member Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation; and ranking member Rep. Bob Gibbs, (R-Ohio). “We are skeptical that such truly extraordinary relief is justified given that this ‘crisis' was foreseeable and mostly avoidable. Further, we are concerned that this relief sets a damaging precedent that any current or future contract with the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or Service) could be renegotiated outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations,” their letter states. The lawmakers are concerned the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security focused on “exploring options to resuscitate [Eastern Shipbuilding Group] and prevent it from defaulting on the OPC contract without first completing a transparent and objective alternative analysis.” The chief lobbyist for Eastern Shipbuilding is former commandant of the Coast Guard, retired Adm. Robert Papp, who joined the company shortly after being awarded the initial OPC contract. Papp is the first Washington lobbyist hired by Eastern Shipbuilding, according to a company statement. “The veil of secrecy regarding its analysis and the absence of any meaningful consultation by the Coast Guard and DHS with the Committee, provides us scant confidence that any revised OPC contract will not encounter a similar fate as the original contract,” the congressional letter states. https://news.usni.org/2019/12/05/coast-guard-to-re-compete-multi-billion-dollar-offshore-patrol-cutter-contract
March 10, 2020 | International, C4ISR

Pentagon Seeks New SatCom Tech For ‘Fully Networked C3’
"Our fully networked C3 [Command, Control, & Communications] will look completely different" from current satellites and terminals, said OSD's Doug Schroeder. By THERESA HITCHENS SATELLITE 2020: The Pentagon wants industry ideas on how to craft a “fundamentally new architecture” for command, control and communications (C3) that will allow “any user using any terminal to connect to any other user using any other terminal,” says Doug Schroeder, who oversees the effort under the Office of Research and Engineering (R&E). This kind of omnipresent, all-service connectivity across land, sea, air, and space is essential for the Pentagon's rapidly evolving of future war, known as Joint-All Domain Operations. “Our Fully Networked C3 communications will look completely different. We have a new vision. We're crafting it with the help of industry,” he said. “We're relying on very heavily on industry, starting with this Broad Agency Announcement dated March 6,” which asks for companies to submit white papers in short order. According to Schroeder, the Space Development Agency (SDA) will be the funding authority. Vendors whose short, 10 to 15 page white papers are chosen will be invited at the end of April to a Pitch Day. Winners then will be given three months to develop a proposal; contracts for prototypes will be granted 24 months later. Speaking to a relatively sparse audience here at the annual commercial satellite industry conference, Satellite 2020 — which is underway despite the threat of the COVID-19 Coronavirus — Schroeder stressed: “We are going to take our new direction from you.” The new strategy, called Fully Networked C3 (FNC3), is being spearheaded by R&E director Mike Griffin and his assistant director for FNC3, Michael Zatman. According to the BAA, the first issued under the effort, the new strategy is being designed to “enable the DoD to reliably communicate with all its tactical and strategic assets.” C3 is one of Griffin's Top Ten areas of technology innovation for which DoD is developing an agency-wide development strategy. Specifically, DoD now is looking for “Beyond-Line-Of-Site (BLOS) communications systems for airborne, surface, and subsurface systems that is [sic] compatible with both FNC3 enabled systems and legacy systems,” the BAA states. The BAA calls for White Papers to be submitted by March 30 for three different types of BLOS technologies: 1. Protected Radio Frequency (RF) BLOS Communications. 2. Multi-User/Multi-Point High-Data-Rate Laser Communications. 3. Communications with submerged assets. R&E intends to “develop, prototype, and demonstrate each innovative communications capability with the goal of transitioning the technologies into programs of record,” the BAA said. To ensure speedy results, DoD will use Other Transaction Authority (OTA) for prototyping (found under 10 U.S. Code § 2371b.) Much of the detail about the effort is contained in classified annexes. What we do know: Beyond-Line-Of-Sight communications relayed through satellites generally require equipping platforms — such as aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles — with high-throughput voice and data links, capabilities all of the services have expressed interest in. In particular, after years of little progress, Griffin has reinvigorated DoD interest in optical communications via laser links, in large part due to fears about Russian and Chinese RF jamming. Commercial industry has been rushing to develop optical links to enable satellite-to-satellite data transmission, and the Space Development Agency is interested in that capability for its so-called transport layer of small satellites in Low Earth Orbit. Radio-frequency communications with submarines when underwater are generally limited to terse text messages, transmitted at very low frequencies (three to 30 kilohertz) and extremely low frequencies (three to 300 hertz) and requiring very large antennas to receie them. Research work is ongoing at MIT on how to link traditional underwater sonar to airborne RF receivers, a methodology called Translational Acoustic-RF) communication. Research also is ongoing, including at MIT's Lincoln Lab, on using narrow-beam lasers to allow one underwater vehicle to communicate with another. BLOS communications can also be accomplished without using satellites. Alternative method include tropospheric scatter using microwave radiation, high frequency (HF) wireless, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) relays, and passive reflector systems. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/pentagon-seeks-new-satcom-tech-for-fully-networked-c3

All news