August 3, 2024 | International, C4ISR, Security
APT28 Targets Diplomats with HeadLace Malware via Car Sale Phishing Lure
A Russia-linked threat actor, APT28, is using a car-for-sale phishing lure to deliver a new Windows backdoor called HeadLace.
February 28, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Design Milestone Reached For Air-Launched Hypersonic Missile
Steve Trimble
ORLANDO—Lockheed Martin expects to complete the critical design review (CDR) on Feb. 27 for the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), the U.S. military's most technologically ambitious hypersonic weapon, an executive said.
The key milestone, indicating an imminent design freeze, comes as part of an unusual development schedule imposed on the ARRW program. The technical complexity of ARRW stems from its high lift-to-drag profile, a shape the U.S. military has never tested successfully in flight. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) program, which shares the advanced ARRW profile, is intended as a risk-reduction measure for ARRW, but still has not completed a self-powered flight test.
In fact, the CDR milestone for ARRW originally was scheduled to come after a first flight for TBG, but the Air Force has kept ARRW on its original pace even as schedules for the DARPA program have slipped.
“The [original TBG and ARRW] schedules were more serial,” said John Varley, vice president of hypersonics for Lockheed's Missiles and Fire Control business. “As we're moving fast, things are merging together and becoming more parallel. If we waited until all that was done, we wouldn't be moving at the pace that the customer is looking for.”
Indeed, Jeff Babione, president of Lockheed's Skunk Works, said last June that he expected the first TBG flight by the end of last year or early next year. But U.S. defense officials now say they expect the DARPA program to enter flight testing later this year, after a planned test of the Block 1 version of the Common Hypersonic Glide Body, a low-lift-to-drag shape for intermediate-range Army and Navy missiles.
In other ways, ARRW is further along in development than most military acquisition projects at the CDR milestone, Varley said.
“It's not the traditional way of doing it, because at CDR you wouldn't have hardware built, you wouldn't have [demonstration/validation] testing done. And this is very mature,” he said.
On the same subject
-
-
August 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace
GA-ASI Selects 18 Businesses to Participate in Virtual Blue Magic Belgium
SAN DIEGO, Aug. 26, 2020 /CNW/ -- As part of the second annual "Blue Magic Belgium" industry engagement event hosted by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA–ASI), 18 Belgium-based companies have been selected to present their ideas and cutting-edge capabilities to a panel of GA-ASI technical experts. The panel will evaluate the companies in a virtual interview setting and make decisions on which capabilities can support the development of MQ-9B SkyGuardian®, the GA-ASI Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) selected by Belgian Defense. The presentations will be held during the week of Sept. 21 and unlike the first Blue Magic Belgium (BMB) industry outreach event in 2019, this year's event will be held virtually due to travel and in-person meeting restrictions stemming from the coronavirus. "We're very excited to host our second Blue Magic Belgium event," said Linden Blue, CEO, GA-ASI. "Our first BMB event was a great success as we identified four Belgian companies who are now part of our SkyGuardian development team. We look forward to the same success this year. We know that attracting new Belgian businesses means more jobs for Belgium and it helps GA-ASI produce the best RPA for Belgian Defense and all NATO countries." As part of last year's event, AeroSimulators Group (ASG), AIRobot, ALX Systems and Hexagon joined Team SkyGuardian, which already included these five Belgium companies: SABCA, Thales Belgium, ScioTeq, ST Engineering and DronePort. GA-ASI is working with these companies now to generate next-generation capabilities for their RPA. The companies participating in Blue Magic Belgium the week of Sept. 21 will be Airobot, AKKA BENELUX, Altran Belgium, ALX Systems, Any-Shape, Cenaero, Feronyl, Hexagon Geospatial, IDRONECT, Lambda-X, ML2Grow, Moss Composites, Optrion, Oscars, ScioTeq, Siemens, VITO-Remote Sensing, and von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics. Hi-resolution images of MQ-9B SkyGuardian are available to qualified media outlets from GA-ASI. About GA-ASI General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), an affiliate of General Atomics, is a leading designer and manufacturer of proven, reliable Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) systems, radars, and electro-optic and related mission systems, including the Predator® RPA series and the Lynx® Multi-mode Radar. With more than six million flight hours, GA-ASI provides long-endurance, mission-capable aircraft with integrated sensor and data link systems required to deliver persistent flight that enables situational awareness and rapid strike. The company also produces a variety of ground control stations and sensor control/image analysis software, offers pilot training and support services, and develops meta-material antennas. For more information, visit www.ga-asi.com. SkyGuardian, SeaGuardian, Predator and Lynx are registered trademarks of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. GA-ASI Media Relations General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. +1 (858) 524-8101 ASI-MediaRelations@ga-asi.com Related Images ga-asis-mq-9b-skyguardian.jpg GA-ASI's MQ-9B SkyGuardian "We're very excited to host our second Blue Magic Belgium event," said Linden Blue, CEO, GA-ASI. "Our first BMB event was a great success as we identified four Belgian companies who are now part of our SkyGuardian development team. SOURCE General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ga-asi-selects-18-businesses-to-participate-in-virtual-blue-magic-belgium-836568869.html
-
September 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
A consensus-driven joint concept for all-domain warfare will fall short
Mark Gunzinger Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new U.S. Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict U.S. operations in the past. Hyten also noted the concept will seamlessly integrate “fires from all domains, including space and cyber,” to overwhelm an enemy. While these aspirations are laudable, there are indications the concept could fall short of what is needed to inform cross-service trade-offs that must be made in an era of flat or declining defense budgets. The DoD creates operating concepts to define preferred approaches to perform specific missions or execute a campaign to defeat an enemy. They also provide a foundation for the services to assess new technologies, force alternatives and resource priorities. Said another way, they are the tissue that connects top-level National Defense Strategy guidance to actual plans and programs. While a joint all-domain war-fighting concept is urgently needed, Hyten has not made it clear the one in development will lead to trade-offs that maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. For instance, Hyten has said it will call for every service to conduct long-range strikes: “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep. ... Everybody.” This could mean the concept will support a degree of redundancy across the services that has never existed. Setting aside tough trade-offs that eliminate excessively redundant programs will waste defense dollars and reduce capabilities available to U.S. commanders. More specifically, the concept might endorse the Army's plan to buy 1,000-mile-plus, surface-to-surface missiles that cost millions of dollars each. Doing so would ignore analyses that have determined using large numbers of these weapons would be far more expensive than employing bombers that can strike any target on the planet for a fraction of the cost, then regenerate and fly more sorties. Furthermore, the Army's long-range missile investments could be at the expense of its ability to defend U.S. theater air bases against missile attacks. Not only has air base missile defense long been an Army mission — it has long neglected and underfunded the mission. Chinese or Russian strikes against under-defended air bases could cripple the United States' primary combat sortie-generation operations. If the concept does not consider these kinds of trade-offs, it could be due to the approach used to create it. The Joint Staff's doctrine development process is notorious for seeking consensus instead of making cross-service trade-offs necessary to maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. Assuring bureaucratic service equities versus optimizing combat lethality can lead to operating concepts that fail to create clear priorities or — worse yet — declare everything a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. Moreover, each service was asked to develop a subordinate concept that will be integrated into the whole. This piece-part approach could result in the services ladening their subordinate concepts with their own equities instead of working together to develop the most effective, decisive options. In short, a bottom-up, consensus-driven concept for all-domain warfare would not be an effective baseline to compare the DoD's force structure and capability alternatives. Three things could help to avoid this mistake. First, the secretary of defense should approve a new all-domain war-fighting concept, and the secretary's staff should be deeply involved in its development. Some say the latter is inappropriate, believing the military, not DoD civilians, should create war-fighting concepts. However, it is entirely appropriate for the secretary's staff to be part of the concept's creation if its purpose is to shape the DoD's plans and programs. Second, DoD leaders should rigorously examine the services' existing roles and missions during the concept's development, and make changes to reduce excessively redundant responsibilities, forces and capabilities. This may need to be driven by congressional language. Finally, the DoD should jettison the word “joint” as part of the concept's title. This would stress the concept is focused on integrating operations across all domains, not on the services that provide forces to combatant commanders. The point is not for all to participate, but instead for all options to be considered, and those that provide best combat value be prioritized. Otherwise, it becomes a case analogous to all the kids chasing a soccer ball. The 2018 National Defense Strategy was the beginning of the effort to shift the DoD toward preparing for peer conflict. Given that dollars and time are short, the DoD must now get a concept for all-domain warfare right. Like the National Defense Strategy, the concept must be top-down driven, not a bottom-up, consensus-driven product that fails to make trade-offs across the services and provides a rationale that supports what each service desires to buy. Rather, its ultimate objective should be to seek best-value capabilities and expand theater commander options to defeat peer adversaries. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/22/a-consensus-driven-joint-concept-for-all-domain-warfare-will-fall-short/