Egypt inks $1.7 billion deal for K9 howitzers from South Korea

On the same subject

• 

  August 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Six considerations from the Defense News Top 100 list

  By: Byron Callan As usual, the annual Defense News Top 100 rankings shed light on changes in the defense sector, while raising additional questions for all interested parties. The rankings among U.S. firms have been relatively stable, with the primary catalyst for several years worth of change being acquisitions or divestitures. The U.S. order will again change in next year's edition, when Raytheon Technologies appears as a single entity for the first time. Defense News added Chinese enterprises in 2019, and so it's good to see this extended in 2020, as China has the second largest defense budget in the world after the U.S. This year's list raises six points worth highlighting, while observing how relative rankings have changed over time. First: These lists are difficult to compile, as they depend in large part on the willingness of contractors to provide sales data. There are some omissions, which hopefully could show up in future rankings — notably, BWX Technologies, SpaceX, General Atomics, Mantech, Parsons and Kratos for the U.S.; more Japanese firms including Kawasaki Heavy Industries; Navantia of Spain and other European naval shipyards; United Aircraft in Russia; ASC Pty in Australia; and PGZ in Poland. There are other Indian firms as well that would likely qualify. Second: It is intriguing to note how long either Lockheed or its successor Lockheed Martin has been the No. 1 U.S. contractor. It's been at the top of the Defense News list since 2003, and data from annual reports show it has been the top U.S. contractor, by sales, since 1980. Size may matter in perpetuating a No. 1 position, so it is notable that the ratio of Lockheed's defense sales to the second-largest contractor has also increased over the years. For this year's list, Lockheed's defense dollars are 165 percent of Boeing's defense sales; in 1988, they were 130 percent higher than the next largest defense contractor, McDonnell Douglas. Third: As much as it's easy to categorize contractors by their home country, it bears repeating that this a global, multinational business with international sales not just from exports. A look at the Australian defense industry highlights the “multi-domestic” nature of contractors in that country. BAE Systems is listed as a U.K. company, but it derives higher annual sales from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia than from London. And in 2019, Israeli firm Elbit had more of its total sales from North America (28 percent of total) than Israel (24 percent of total). Fourth: While the rankings don't capture the changes in the composition of some of the largest contractors, this may have a bearing on competition in the 2020s. CACI and Leidos still are predominantly services contractors, but some of their recent acquisitions, most significantly the Leidos acquisition of Dynetics, are more product-centric. Fifth: Obviously the rankings only capture the top level of the global defense sector, and in assessing supply chains, resiliency, the pace of innovation and technology ingestion, a far wider net has be cast. A July 2020 report by Israel's INSS observed that Israel's defense industry, which has seen consolidation in recent years, is comprised of “about 600 companies” and employs over 45,000 workers. Much as the rankings of the top contractors are of interest, a more critical assessment of the health and agility of contractors may rest on what's happening with smaller firms. Finally: The question of state, private or public ownership is a sixth factor to weigh. State ownership of Chinese firms and partial government stakes in some of the largest European enterprises has entailed different incentives and goals — it's hard to conclude, given the nature of China's rise, that government ownership of contractors has stymied the development and production of competitive weapons systems, though there's little transparency on efficiency. In the 2020s, it remains to be seen how different and competing ownership shapes future rankings. Byron Callan is a policy research expert at Capital Alpha Partners. He specializes in the defense and aerospace industries. https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/six-considerations-from-the-defense-news-top-100-list/

• 

  July 28, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  US Army begins experimenting with new network tools

  Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army's combat capabilities development team kicked off a monthslong experiment last week to test emerging technologies that could be added into the service's tactical network. The third annual Network Modernization Experiment at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey started July 20 and ends Oct. 2. NetModX provides an opportunity for the Combat Capabilities Development Command's C5ISR Center — or Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center — to perform field tests with emerging capabilities that have largely been tested in the lab. Field tests with simulated threat environments, as opposed to lab tests, are important because technologies react in unexpected ways due to realities like different types of trees or terrain. This year's theme for NetModX is mission command and command-post survivability, which means participants will focus on technologies that could be fielded in the Army's Integrated Tactical Network Capability Set '23 and Capability Set '25 — future iterations of network tools that the Army plans to deliver to soldiers every two years. In this year's test, the C5ISR Center is testing communications capabilities that allow for distributed mission command systems across the battlefield “and wider area,” said Michael Brownfield, chief of the future capabilities office at the C5ISR Center. “We've learned by watching our enemies fight, and we know that to survive on the battlefield, No. 1, they can't be able to see us,” Brownfield told C4ISRNET in an interview. “And No. 2, we have to distribute our systems across the battlefield to give them multiple targets and multiple dilemmas in order to survive.” NetModX is also testing network resiliency capabilities that could be delivered as part of Capability Set '23. Preliminary design review for the capability set is scheduled for April next year. To test the effectiveness of the resiliency projects the center developed in the lab, the C5ISR Center created a “state-of-the-art red cell” that attacks the network using enemy's tactics, techniques and procedures, according to Brownfield. The goal is to make sure the technology can withstand electronic attacks and allow for continuous operations in contested environments when in the hands of deployed soldiers. “What resiliency means to us is the network bends, it doesn't break,” Brownfield said. “And the commanders have the information they need and the coordination that they need to fight the battle.” A modular radio frequency system of systems is undergoing tests, and Brownfield says it will “revolutionize” the fight on the battlefield. The system automatically switches between primary, alternate, contingency and emergency, or PACE, radios by sensing if radio frequencies are being jammed. The system then responds by automatically switching radio channels to allow for seamless communications in a contested environment. Currently, “it's kind of hard to switch to alternate comms when the person you're talking to is on their primary, not their alternative comms,” Brownfield said. “And the process is very slow. It's human-driven.” Now, the automatic PACE system senses the environment in milliseconds, he said. At last year's experiment, which focused on network transport capabilities to support precision fires for multidomain operations, the center experimented with radios that could flip to new channels on their own, while launching brute force and other more sophisticated attacks against the radios to see how much stress they could handle before passing data became impossible. This year will be a little different. “This year, we're pairing different radios together and see how they can work to actually change the type of modulation schemes that we use to maneuver in cyberspace around for continuous operations while under enemy attack and under contested electronic warfare conditions,” Brownfield said. One of the top priorities for this year's experiment is allowing for projects leaders to bring their technology into to the field, no matter what stage of development they are in, to be tested in an “operationally relevant environment,” Brownfield said. The team then collects data on how the technology performs and puts it into a database where it can be queried to answer specific performance questions. “So we can ... ask the database questions like, ‘What was my latency with these two radios at this point in time,' and start to understand the true metrics of how the systems performed in the field,” Joshua Fischer, acting chief of systems engineering, architecture, modeling and simulation at the C5ISR Center, told C4ISRNET. He added that those involved are also looking at network throughput. https://www.c4isrnet.com/yahoo-syndication/2020/07/24/us-army-begins-experimenting-with-new-network-tools/

• 

  November 6, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  US Air Force awards ABMS contracts to another 24 vendors

  Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has awarded 24 companies new contracts for its Advanced Battle Management System, according to a Nov. 4 contract announcement from the Pentagon. The contracts, which have a ceiling of $950 million each, will help the Air Force build out ABMS, its platform behind the Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept, which seeks to connect sensors to shooters across domains. The contracts have a performance period of five years with a $1,000 minimum. Under the contracts, the companies will “compete for future efforts associated with the maturation, demonstration and proliferation of capability across platforms and domains, leveraging open systems design, modern software and algorithm development in order to enable Joint All Domain Command and Control,” the contract announcement reads. The 24 companies are Altamira Technologies Corp., Amergint Technologies Inc., Carahsoft Technology Corp., Geosite Inc., Lyteworx Automation Systems LLC, MarkLogic Corp., Rebellion Defense Inc., Rhombus Power Inc., Soar Technology Inc., Vidrovr Inc, Advanced Simulation Research Inc., Borsight Inc., Datanchor Inc., Digital Mobilizations Inc., EFW Inc., F9 Teams Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Infinity Labs LLC, Radiant Mission Solutions Inc. Microsoft Corp., Ortman Consulting LLC, Peraton Inc., R2 Space Inc. and Sierra Nevada Corp. “This creative contract strategy is needed to support the agile and fast-paced nature of this program. These Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts provide each vendor the opportunity to receive anywhere from $1,000 to $950 million total over the next five years for work in up to seven different ABMS product categories,” Air Force spokesperson Capt. Clay Lancaster said in a statement. 70 companies have now received ABMS contracts. The Air Force awarded two other rounds of awards in the last few months, with 28 companies receiving identical awards in late May and 18 more getting added in July. The awards steam from a Broad Agency Announcement the service released in February. “This ID/IQ is part of a multi-prong innovative ABMS ‘contract lattice' strategy to enable an agile DevOps approach to software and hardware development — to include four month onramps with Combatant Commanders — that is necessary to deliver needed capabilities to the warfighter faster and more effectively in support of the National Defense Strategy,” Lancaster said. After the last round of awards, Lancaster told C4ISRNET that the awards were meant to establish a line of companies that can respond to future ABMS solicitations. He added that after awards are made to vendors, the service will have more technical discussions with the vendors before releasing more “focused” solicitations that will be open to vendors who received IDIQ contracts. Vendors will then respond to the solicitations with their proposals and task orders will be awarded. “These contracts provide for the development and operation of systems as a unified force across all domains (air, land, sea, space, cyber and electromagnetic spectrum) in an open architecture family of systems that enables capabilities via multiple integrated platforms,” the contract announcement reads. The Air Force has requested $3.3 billion in funding for ABMS, so it's unlikely the $950 million ceilings on the contracts would be reached. The announcement doesn't list specifically what capabilities each company will provide. Initial deliver orders will be funded with fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds. Work is expected to be completed in May 2025. The third round of contract announcements are another step forward on the services' march toward joint warfighting. The Army and Air Force recently agreed to collaborate over the next two years to develop what they are calling Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control. Next year, the Army plans to integrate ABMS into its Project Convergence, the Army's effort to connect sensors to shooters. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/11/05/us-air-force-awards-abms-contracts-to-another-24-vendors