Donald Trump taps JD Vance adviser as next Army secretary

On the same subject

• 

  January 16, 2020 | International, Naval

  US Marine Corps could soon take out enemy ships with Navy missiles

  By: David B. Larter and Jeff Martin WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps could soon get the Navy's new Naval Strike Missile for use as a shore battery, according to the Navy's acquisitions chief. “Just yesterday [Jan. 14] we had the team in that has the Naval Strike Missile on LCS working hand-in-hand with the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps does ground launchers, we do command and control," Assistant Secretary of the Navy James “Hondo” Geurts told reporters after his Jan. 15 speech at the annual Surface Navy symposium. “We'll make that immediately available to the Marine Corps.” Geurts said the effort on Naval Strike Missile, a Kongsberg/Raytheon product, was emblematic of a more coherent approach where instead of a dedicated Marine Corps effort to examine, test and field a system, the services were leveraging each other to get capabilities out faster. The missile was recently deployed to the Pacific on the littoral combat ship Gabrielle Giffords, and the weapon is capable of flying more than 100 miles. It can passively detect enemy ships with imagery in its brain and is so precise that it can target individual parts of a ship, like the engine room or bridge. In May, Raytheon announced it had been awarded $48 million through an other transaction authority contract to integrate the Naval Strike Missile into the Marine Corps' force structure, but very few details were available at the time. This won't be the first time the missile is based on land, as Poland's coastal defense forces already have several batteries in service. And in 2018 at the Rim of the Pacific exercise, the U.S. Army fired a Naval Strike Missile at a decommissioned ship as part of a live-fire demonstration. It's unknown what the Marine Corps will use as a launcher, as it is unclear whether or not the service's M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System can be used to fire the Naval Strike Missile. However, it is likely that the Corps' manned launchers will fire the missiles while on the deck of Navy amphibious ships, as the Corps has been testing the capability with HIMARS launchers. “We're serious about it,” Geurts said. “You've heard the commandant and the assistant commandant talk about more lethal anti-ship activity. ... It's certainly something we are looking at closely.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2020/01/15/the-marine-corps-could-soon-take-out-enemy-ships-with-navy-missiles

• 

  October 13, 2024 | International, Naval

  Why Space Force chose commercial firms to build its new ground system

  The program says its use of commercial vendors and focus on real-time operational needs make it different from legacy acquisition approaches.

• 

  January 31, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Silicon Valley investors to DoD: Dual-use tech is a bad strategy

  By: Jill Aitoro SIMI VALLEY, Calif. — Dual-use technology — that is, tech that can be adapted from the commercial market to serve the needs of the military — is core to the U.S. Department of Defense's innovation strategy. But those willing to put money toward big ideas argue it's the wrong approach. “In terms of how to build a startup and how to scale really fast, you can't have two missions,” said Katherine Boyle, an investor with venture capital firm General Catalyst, during a Defense News roundtable in California. “You can't be a 10-person startup saying: ‘OK, we're going to sell to the DoD, but we're also going to sell to these commercial customers, and it's just going to work out magically.'" For the second year in a row, Defense News hosted the roundtable to dig into Pentagon's efforts to engage with the commercial tech community — this year digging into the challenges and opportunities that come with investment in defense development. To the Pentagon, dual-use technology offers an attractive means of drawing new players into the military fold, while also leveraging the more rapid development that happens on the commercial side. But the model is evolving, said Mike Madsen, director of strategic engagement with the government's Silicon Valley outreach hub Defense Innovation Unit. With DoD, “it takes two years to get to a ‘yes,' when a lot of companies need a ‘no' in 30 days because they don't have the capital,” he said. “So we flipped it. Now we start with the DoD problem set and take it out to industry. And we've lowered a lot of the barriers to entry — we negotiate [intellectual property] for each contract, we negotiate auditability, we move quickly. We look to award prototype contracts in 60 to 90 days.” The approach also attempts to rebalance the gradual shift in research and development investments in the last couple of decades. As noted by Tom Foldesi, DIU's commercial engagement director, one-third of worldwide R&D was tied to the Department of Defense in the 1960s. That percentage has since tanked to 3.7 percent. A separate business line allows R&D to continue to iterate to the next generation of technology so the DoD can “go back to the cookie jar” and tap into the technology to solve future problems, Foldesi said. But to Trey Stephens, a partner at venture capital firm Founders Fund and a co-founder and executive chairman of Anduril Industries, the model ensures the large, traditional defense contractors continue to dominate as the small businesses only “dabble in defense.” It also means the DoD won't bear sole responsibility for the economic growth of these small tech startups. “Where I'm not on board is where a traditional defense company is being asked by the government to integrate dual-use capabilities as a way to prevent that oligopoly from being shaken,” he said. “We have to break this oligopoly. We can only do it if we find companies that are willing to own their responsibility for execution on programs.” To be clear, Stephens acknowledged cases where commercial technology companies can be primes. Lawsuit aside, he's “on board” with awarding the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract to a commercial business — Microsoft — “because the capability is similar enough.” Microsoft was awarded the Pentagon's JEDI cloud contract, but Amazon Web Services has asked a federal court to block the department and the company from beginning work on the project, according to a Jan. 13 court filing. In terms of new capabilities, Stephens advocates for turning the model on its ear: Enable startups to first development a solution to a problem faced within the DoD, then turn that around and sell it to commercial industries. “The commercial industry is oftentimes looking to the government for aspirational solutions to some of its hardest problems, whereas the inverse doesn't really work,” he said. General Catalyst, which counts The Honest Company, Snapchat and Airbnb among its portfolio of companies, has invested in two pure-play defense companies: Anduril, and Palo Alto machine-learning company Vannevar Labs. The latter is developing a product that would bring natural language-processing technologies to support counterterrorism missions. “We actually think this is a better model,” Boyle said. “If you're scaling rapidly, you have to be very focused on your customer set. And if you're going to have to sacrifice a customer, even if you're a multibillion-dollar company, you're going to sacrifice the one who's moving the slowest. And that's usually the government.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/smr/cultural-clash/2020/01/30/silicon-valley-investors-to-dod-dual-use-tech-is-a-bad-strategy/