FIN7 Cybercrime Group Targeting U.S. Auto Industry with Carbanak Backdoor

On the same subject

• 

  August 9, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land

  Hypersonics by the dozens: US industry faces manufacturing challenge

  By: Jen Judson HUNTSVILLE, Ala. —The U.S. military is a few years from launching offensive hypersonic weapons that are currently under development. But building those initial missiles is one thing — manufacturing the weapons in multitude is another issue entirely. “I would say we really need to understand, again, how can we produce precision hardware at scale,” Michael Griffin, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, told a group of reporters Aug. 7 at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. “If we talk about ballistic missile defense or hypersonic offense and we talk about proliferating architectures, we need any dozens, many hundreds, maybe thousands of assets,” he added. “This takes us back to the Cold War where at one point we had 30,000 nuclear warheads and missiles to launch them. We haven't produced at that kind of scale since the wall came down.” As hypersonic missiles become a reality, industry is going to have to relearn how to effectively, efficiently and economically produce them, Griffin said. While industry has developed warheads, glide bodies and other components, there is no industrial base equipped to manufacture hypersonic weapons. Things are moving in the right direction when it comes to bringing industry up to speed and preparing for larger-scale manufacturing of missiles, Griffin said. But building these systems is challenging because, for example, hypersonics require a greater degree of thermal protection than what has been required of other weapons in the past, he noted. Building hypersonics is no longer a technical issue or a matter of understanding physics, but rather an issue of understanding the industrial engineering required to produce a larger number. “I'm not sure how much help the government can be there,” he said. “Mass production is not what we do. ... That is going to be an industry problem.” The Army is just weeks away from awarding a contract to a company that will work with the federally funded laboratory that developed a hypersonic glide body to develop manufacturing plans and strategies. Other companies will have a turn as well. The effort is spearheaded by the service's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office. Griffin stressed that the weapons manufacturing process needs to be affordable. “Our adversaries have clearly found ways to make them affordable. China has these things now by the thousands. What do we do to learn, once again, how to produce sophisticated things at scale and affordably?” he said. China is able to field new systems every few years, Griffin noted, while the U.S. takes a decade or more to get through a cumbersome acquisition process. “It don't believe that the issues facing the United States aerospace and defense establishment are issues of specific technologies,” he said. “I believe that over the last 30 years ... we've become lost in our processes.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2019/08/08/hypersonics-by-the-dozens-us-industry-faces-manufacturing-challenge/

• 

  December 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  L’industriel français Dassault dans le premier cercle des vendeurs d’armes

  Le classement mondial des industriels de l'armement, publié lundi, est trusté par des groupes américains. Par Isabelle Chaperon Publié aujourd'hui à 00h00, mis à jour à 07h39 En tête, rien ne bouge. Cinq groupes américains – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics – dominent le classement mondial des industriels de l'armement, publié lundi 7 décembre par l'Institut international de recherche sur la paix de Stockholm (Sipri). Ce palmarès a été établi à partir des données de 2019, année où les ventes d'armes et autres équipements militaires des 25 premiers acteurs du secteur ont atteint 361 milliards de dollars (298 milliards d'euros), soit 8,5 % de plus que le top 25 en 2018. Derrière les leaders, la hiérarchie évolue. D'abord parce que, pour la première fois, le Sipri a inclus des fabricants chinois. Quatre d'entre eux, dont Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), apparaissent ainsi parmi les vingt-cinq groupes mondiaux de l'armement sachant que d'autres entreprises chinoises auraient pu y figurer « mais les informations étaient insuffisantes », précise le Sipri. En un an, les ventes de Dassault Aviation ont augmenté de 105 % Ces quatre représentants de l'Empire du Milieu raflent 16 % des ventes du club des 25 leaders mondiaux et forment le deuxième bataillon national derrière les douze fleurons de l'armada américaine et leur 61 % de part de marché. Ensemble, les six Européens de l'Ouest (BAE Systems, Leonardo, Airbus, Thales, Dassault, Rolls Royce) comptent pour 18 %. Les deux Russes (Almaz-Antey, United Shipbuilding Corp) pour 3,9 %. A noter la création de EDGE, un acteur des Emirats arabes unis né en 2019 de la fusion de vingt-cinq entreprises locales, qui se place au 22e rang. Du côté des industriels français, « une forte hausse des livraisons de l'avion de combat Rafale a propulsé Dassault Aviation dans le top 25 pour la première fois », souligne Lucie Béraud-Sudreau, directrice du programme armes et équipements militaires au Sipri. En un an, les ventes de l'avionneur tricolore ont augmenté de 105 %, soit la croissance la plus élevée en pourcentage dans le secteur. En parallèle, Naval Group qui figurait en 2018 au vingt et unième rang a perdu sa place dans le club. Airbus arrive à la 13e place (10e en 2018) et Thales à la 14e (13e). https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2020/12/07/dassault-dans-le-premier-cercle-des-vendeurs-d-armes_6062420_3234.html

• 

  September 22, 2020 | International, Naval

  US Marines wants to move fast on a light amphibious warship. But what is it?

  David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps is moving as fast as it can to field a new class of light amphibious warship, but it remains unclear what it will do, where it will be based or what capabilities it will bring to the fight. The idea behind the ship is to take a commercial design or adapt a historic design to make a vessel capable of accommodating up to 40 sailors and at least 75 Marines to transport Marine kit over a range of about 3,500 nautical miles, according to a recent industry day presentation. While the presentation noted that the ship should have few tailored Navy requirements, that also creates a problem: If the Navy is going to pay tens of millions to develop, build, crew and operate them, should it not provide some additional value to the fleet? Analysts, experts and sources with knowledge of internal discussions who spoke to Defense News say the answer to that question is a source of friction inside the Pentagon. The idea of the warship arrived on the scene in 2019 with the ascension of Gen. David Berger as commandant of the Marine Corps. His planning guidance called for a smaller, more agile amphibious force that could operate inside the Chinese anti-access, area denial window in the South China Sea. In a recent virtual meeting of the Surface Navy Association, the chief of naval operations' director of expeditionary warfare, Maj. Gen. Tracy King, emphasized that above all, the platform must be cheap and come online quickly. “I see the efficacy of this [light amphibious warship] is really to help us in the phases and stages we're in right now,” King said Aug. 27. “We need to start doing things differently, as an extension of the fleet, under the watchful eye of our Navy, engaging with our partners and allies and building partner capacity: We ought to be doing that right now. I think we're late to need with building the light amphibious warship, which is why we're trying to go so quickly.” When asked whether the ship should contribute to a more distributed sensor architecture to align with the Navy's desire to be more spread out over a large area during a fight, King answered in the affirmative. "[But] I really see it benefiting from [that architecture] more,” he said. “We need to build an affordable ship that can get after the ability to do maritime campaigning in the littorals.” The unstated implication appeared to be that if the ship is loaded up with sensors and requirements, it will slow down the process and increase the cost. Analysts who spoke to Defense News agreed with that, saying the Navy is likely trying to put more systems on the platform that will make it more complex and more expensive. The Navy has said it wants to keep the price under $100 million per platform and begin purchasing them as early as the latter half of 2022. “The hardest part is going to be appetite suppression, especially on the part of the Navy,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and analyst with The Heritage Foundation. "This is what we saw in the littoral combat ship: It started out as a very light, near-shore, small and inexpensive street fighter. And then people started adding on requirements. You had ballooning costs, increasing complexity of the platform, and you get into all kinds of problems. “The Marine Corps wants this quickly. It needs it to be inexpensive so you can have 28-30 of them over a three- to four-year period.” There is the additional challenge of where the ships will be based, since they will probably not be built to the kinds of standards of normal Navy vessels built to last for 30-40 years in service. The minimum service life for the light amphibious warship will be about 10 years, according to the industry day presentation. Wood said that would be a challenge for the Marines and the State Department to work out in parallel with the effort to get the hulls quickly built. Jerry Hendrix, a retied Navy captain and analyst with the Telemus Group, agreed with that assessment, saying the Marines are eager to move forward to get something fielded, in part to make sure this transition to a lighter, more distributed force being pushed by Berger actually happens. "The commandant can't divest of some of the legacy platforms he's building — these big, expensive and vulnerable platforms — until he has something that replaces it in the water. And so he's anxious to get going with something else so he then has a reason to move away from what he has. “The commandant is well aware he has a four-year clock and its ticking. So if he's going to make changes, he's got to get moving to get those changes in place and commit the Marine Corps to them to make sure it's going to last. And right now I'm not sure there's a lot of high confidence that they are going to last.” Hendrix acknowledged that the Navy has good reason to want the light amphibious warship to have more capability, but added that the Corps is more interested in something simple than something costly and elaborate. “What that does,” Hendrix said, “is drive up unit cost and drive down the numbers that can be purchased.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/21/us-marines-wants-to-move-fast-on-a-light-amphibious-warship-but-what-is-it/