Enabling Revolutionary Nondestructive Inspection Capability

On the same subject

• 

  December 11, 2019 | International, Land

  Analysis: NATO's defence budget formula is flawed — and Canada isn't going to meet its target

  Trump is angry that a number of NATO nations haven't met an agreement, reached five years ago, to spend two per cent of their annual Gross Domestic Product on defence DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Another NATO summit brings another chance for U.S. President Donald Trump to browbeat America's allies for not spending enough on defence. Trump is angry that a number of NATO nations haven't met an agreement, reached five years ago, to spend two per cent of their annual Gross Domestic Product on defence. But that GDP yardstick has been rendered almost meaningless this year as the tiny nation of Bulgaria has joined the U.S. super power as being one of NATO's top military spenders. Bulgaria's GDP is so small that by purchasing eight F-16 fighter jets in a one-time outlay of $1.5 billion, the country will now be spending 3.25 per cent of its economic output on its military. Only the U.S., which spends 3.4 per cent of GDP on defence, is higher. Using the GDP measurement means that Estonia, which has one of the smallest navies in the world with four ships, has reached the NATO gold standard of two per cent. Canada, which spends more than 20 times the amount in actual dollars on its military, is viewed as a NATO deadbeat. For that reason, both Conservative and Liberal governments have pushed back on the GDP measurement, which was agreed to by NATO nations at a summit in Wales in 2014. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, arguably the most supportive leader of the Canadian military that the country had seen in decades, dismissed the notion of reaching that two per cent target, even though Canada signed on to the goal. At the Wales summit, Harper's staff pointed out that reaching the two per cent mark would have required the military's budget to almost double, something that was not fiscally or politically possible. Harper himself had come under fire from defence analysts who pointed out that under his government, the percentage of GDP spent on defence reached almost an all-time low of around 1 per cent. But Harper countered that it's the amount of actual spending and capability of a country's military that matters, not the GDP measurement. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was essentially using the same argument Tuesday when he met with Trump at the NATO summit. “I think it's important to look at what is actually being done,” with defence dollars, Trudeau said. Canada only spends about 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence. But tabulate the defence dollars actually being spent on the military and Canada ranks an impressive sixth among the 29 NATO nations. The Liberal government's defence policy has promised even more money in the future. Military spending is set to increase from the current $21.8 billion to $32.7 billion in 2026-2027. Trudeau also noted in his meeting with Trump on Tuesday the key role Canada is playing in NATO operations in both Latvia and Iraq. Germany has taken a similar approach to the one used by Canada's Conservative and Liberal governments. It believes the amount of money actually being spent on military forces is more important than measuring it as a percentage of the GDP. Germany has also pointed out it is the second largest provider of troops for NATO operations. Trump is expected to once again criticize Germany for its level of defence spending. But the country does not seem to be in a hurry to make the two per cent goal. Germany currently spends about 1.4 per cent or around $64 billion annually. Earlier this year it told NATO it would reach 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2024. The other issue facing the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces related to the two per cent goal is one of capacity. Even if the defence budget was boosted to meet two per cent, the department simply doesn't have the ability to spend that amount of money. Around half the defence budget is for salaries and while the senior military leadership would welcome an increase in the ranks the problem they face is that young Canadians aren't exactly rushing out to join the forces. The military could spend more money on acquiring additional equipment. But a lack of trained procurement staff has been an obstacle standing in the way of even getting approved programs underway. Trudeau's explanation Tuesday about Canada's military spending being on a steady increase seemed to placate Trump, at least for now. The U.S. president responded that he views Canada as “slightly delinquent” when it comes to defence spending. “But they'll be okay,” he told journalists. “I have confidence. They'll get there quickly, I think.” https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/analysis-natos-defence-budget-formula-is-flawed-and-canada-isnt-going-to-meet-its-target

• 

  December 24, 2018 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

  SpaceX launches Air Force’s best GPS yet, ends banner year

  By: The Associated Press CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — SpaceX has launched the U.S. Air Force's most powerful GPS satellite ever built. A Falcon 9 rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on Sunday, hoisting the satellite toward orbit. The satellite was supposed to soar Tuesday but rocket concerns and then weather delayed the flight. Heather Wilson, secretary of the Air Force, says this next-generation GPS satellite is three times more accurate than previous versions and eight times better at anti-jamming. It's the first in a series and nicknamed Vespucci after the 15th-century Italian explorer who calculated Earth's circumference to within 50 miles (80 kilometers). It was SpaceX's 21st and final launch of the year, a company record. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/12/23/spacex-launches-air-forces-best-gps-yet-ends-banner-year

• 

  January 24, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  How Top Military Contractors Raytheon And BAE Systems Are Drawing Non-Traditional Suppliers Into Defense

  During the long years that U.S. forces were fighting Islamic extremists in Southwest Asia, Russia and China were investing in new warfighting technologies. Russia's hybrid military campaign against Ukraine in 2014 was a wake-up call for Washington to start paying more attention to “near-peer” threats. China's steadily increasing investment in long-range anti-ship missiles, anti-satellite weapons and cyber warfare reinforced awareness that America's military might be falling behind in the capabilities needed for winning high-end fights. These trends led the Trump Administration to produce a new national defense strategy in 2018 focused mainly on countering the military challenges posed by Moscow and Beijing. Most of that strategy's content is secret, but one element is clear enough: the Pentagon wants novel solutions to emerging near-peer threats, and it wants them fast. Policymakers in both the Obama and Trump administrations have repeatedly stated non-traditional military suppliers are a vital part of the Pentagon's effort to get ahead of overseas rivals and stay there. “Non-traditional” has a specific legal definition in defense acquisition policy that potentially allows suppliers to bypass burdensome regulations when offering commercial products from outside traditional military channels. In more common-sense usage, non-traditional simply means any company capable of offering the military a better mousetrap that doesn't usually do business with the five-sided building. That includes a majority of tech companies in places like Austin, Boston and Silicon Valley, especially startups with cutting-edge ideas. It may also include larger industrial companies like General Motors that are re-entering the military market after a long absence. The challenge facing policymakers is how to leverage the skills and intellectual property of these non-traditional players without suffocating them under a blanket of bureaucratic requirements that contribute little to finding novel solutions. One way to tap the dynamism of commercial enterprises is to partner them with longtime military contractors who can assume most of the burden for negotiating the bureaucratic landscape. Here is how two companies, Raytheon and BAE Systems, have stepped up to the challenge. Raytheon. Massachusetts-based Raytheon has been a major military contractor since it pioneered radar during World War Two. It is in the process of merging with United Technologies, an aerospace conglomerate that has long managed to operate successfully in military and commercial markets (both companies contribute to my think tank). Raytheon executives say the pace of change and the expectations of military customers have changed radically in recent years. It is not uncommon for military customers to seek new ways of sensing, processing or communicating that must be delivered within months rather than years. This emerging dynamic has led the company to rethink who it partners with in producing such solutions, and how to interact with them. Raytheon has a cultural affinity for diversity, which may help it to think outside the box about who its partners should be. Although not all of the non-traditional suppliers with whom it teams are Silicon Valley startups, a majority have not previously offered defense products as part of their portfolios. The role the company has fashioned for itself in partnering with such enterprises is to act as a translator between the fluid world of commercial innovation and the rule-based environment of military acquisition. Raytheon has always been driven by its engineering culture, so the company knows how to identify promising technologies that can be assimilated into cutting-edge combat systems. But it also knows the ins and outs of a baroque acquisition system that outsiders frequently find impenetrable. Raytheon seeks to leverage the energy of non-traditional sources while remaining in compliance with relevant government standards. For instance, there needs to be effective communication between the company and commercial sources, but the ability of the partner to observe the intricacies of sensitive projects must be tightly constrained. The tension of being a valued supplier but not accustomed to working in a classified environment must be managed. Non-traditional partners provide Raytheon with base technologies that potentially enable unique military capabilities, and they often can generate novel solutions to technical challenges quickly, thanks to their entrepreneurial cultures. Raytheon configures and integrates these inputs for military customers while translating the needs of those customers into terms the non-traditional supplier can understand. BAE Systems. The military electronics unit of another major defense contractor, BAE Systems, Inc., is headquartered across the border from Raytheon's home state in Nashua, New Hampshire. BAE concentrates on many of the same technologies Raytheon does such as sensors, signal processing and secure communications—which isn't surprising, since the core of its electronics operation was founded after World War Two by former Raytheon employees. BAE is a consulting client, which has given me some insight into how the company views non-traditional suppliers. In addition to pursuing partnering initiatives such as those at Raytheon, BAE Systems has fashioned an internal mechanism for leveraging the technology of entrepreneurial startups by helping them to finance their businesses. That mechanism is called FAST Labs, and as the name implies it was conceived to help generate novel solutions to military challenges quickly. Beyond determining whether the company should manufacture key technology inputs internally or go outside, FAST Labs continuously scouts for promising innovations that are emerging from U.S. startups. When it finds ideas with high potential, it seeks to build trusted partnerships with the enterprises, venture capital investors, universities and government agencies aimed at speeding the pace of innovation. For example, BAE has sponsored technology accelerators at places like MIT. Most of the startups FAST Labs assists are commercial companies with “dual-use” technologies potentially applicable to military purposes. Although the company has a significant commercial electronics business, the focus of FAST Labs is mainly on meeting the demands of military customers. It takes its cues as to what might be most worthy of support from agencies like the Air Force Research Lab and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. FAST Labs seems to be a unique business model within the U.S. defense sector. Because the electronics technologies on which the Nashua operation concentrates are fungible across diverse markets, BAE Systems has benchmarked FAST Labs against renowned commercial R&D centers such as the old Bell Labs. It is an unusual approach to military innovation, but like executives at Raytheon, BAE execs say the usual approach to developing warfighting systems just doesn't cut it anymore with their Pentagon customer. https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/01/24/how-top-military-contractors-raytheon-and-bae-systems-are-drawing-non-traditional-suppliers-into-defense/amp/