October 2, 2020 | International, C4ISR
WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan congressional panel is recommending that the Pentagon must “identify, replace, and retire costly and ineffective legacy weapons platforms,” and prioritize artificial intelligence, supply chain resiliency and cyberwarfare in order to compete with China and Russia.
The House's Future of Defense Task Force's 87-page report issued Tuesday echoed the accepted wisdom that the Pentagon must expand investments in modern technologies and streamline its cumbersome acquisition practices or risk losing its technological edge against competitors.
The task force is co-chaired by House Armed Services Committee members Reps. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., and Jim Banks, R-Ind., who both signaled they'll champion elements of the report in future defense authorization legislation. While lawmakers are broadly in favor, efforts to retire specific platforms often meet resistance on Capitol Hill.
On weapons systems, the task force offered some practical steps to this end. Congress, it said, should commission the RAND Corporation, or similar entity, and the Government Accountability Office to study legacy platforms within the Defense Department and determine their relevance and resiliency to emerging threats over the next 50 years.
Then a panel should be convened, comprising Congress, the Department of Defense, and representatives from the industrial base, to make recommendations on which platforms should be retired, replaced or recapitalized, the report reads.
Investments in science and technology research need to be prioritized nationally, and at the Pentagon level such investments should meet 3.4 percent of the overall defense budget, as recommended by the Defense Science Board. Funding ought to be expanded at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, national and defense research laboratories and partnering universities, the report says.
The report recommended that each of the military services ought to spend at least one percent of their overall budgets on the integration of new technologies.
The Pentagon must, the report says, scale up efforts to leverage private sector innovation, which is leading the government. The report calls for a tenfold increase in spending for Defense Innovation Unit, AFWERX, Army Futures Command and others ― and more collaborative opportunities like Hacking for Defense.
The report calls for a Manhattan Project for artificial intelligence, saying DoD must go further than its increased investment in AI and Joint Artificial Intelligence Center to assist with the transition and deployment of AI capabilities.
“Using the Manhattan Project as a model, the United States must undertake and win the artificial intelligence race by leading in the invention and deployment of AI while establishing the standards for its public and private use,” the report's authors wrote.
(The Manhattan project is the U.S.-led World War II-era research and development effort that produced the first nuclear weapons.)
The report calls for every major defense acquisition program to evaluate at least one AI or autonomous alternative prior to funding. Plus, all new major weapons purchases ought to be “AI-ready and nest with existing and planned joint all-domain command and control networks,” it says.
Warning the country's supply chain is one of its “greatest national security and economic vulnerabilities,” the report calls for a national supply chain intelligence center under the Office of Director of National Intelligence and the elimination of single points of failure within DoD's supply chain.
The task force, launched last October, includes several lawmakers with practical national security experience: Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., a former Air Force officer who studied technology and policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; as well as Reps. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., and Michael Waltz, R-Fla., who have served in senior Pentagon policy jobs.
HASC members Reps. Susan Davis, D-Calif., Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., and Paul Mitchell, R-Mich., also served on the task force.
In a statement, Moulton said the bipartisan plan could be used, no matter the outcome of the Nov. 3 presidential and congressional elections. “America needs a plan to confront the dual threats of Russia's aggression and China's rise. This is it,” he said.
January 5, 2023 | International, C4ISR
The agreement encompasses the delivery of Very High Resolution (VHR) imagery from the Airbus Pléiades Neo constellation as early as 2023.
February 15, 2021 | International, Aerospace
When the Clinton administration first conceived the notion of a “joint strike fighter” in 1995, it was the ideal solution to a host of military challenges. The basic idea was a family of highly survivable tactical aircraft that could share common technology to accomplish a dozen different missions for three U.S. military services. The Air Force would use it to replace Cold War F-16 fighters in aerial combat, bombing of ground targets and close air support of troops. The Navy would use it to extend the striking range of carrier-based aircraft. The Marines would use it to land on a dime anywhere expeditionary warfare was being waged. And everybody, including allies, would use it to collect vast amounts of intelligence that could be shared securely with coalition partners in future conflicts. From the beginning there were those who thought the joint strike fighter was an unrealistic dream—a project that expected too much from one plane, and would likely go into a tailspin as costs mounted. The program probably never would have gotten off the ground if military threats had been at a fever pitch. But the Soviet Union had collapsed and China was an afterthought at 3% of global GDP, so the Clinton administration decided to take a gamble. Today, that gamble has paid off. Hundreds of the planes, now designated F-35s, are operational with ten military services around the world. It took longer to come to fruition than originally planned, but in the end the joint strike fighter met its goals for survivability and versatility. That makes it one of the greatest engineering feats of the post-Cold War generation—a testament to the discipline and skill of the American aerospace industry. However, unless you've been following the F-35 program closely, you probably don't know most of this. President Trump entered office with little understanding of F-35, and only gradually came to grasp why it mattered so much to the joint force. The Biden administration hopefully will exhibit a smoother learning curve. Just to be on the safe side, though, it's worth repeating for the umpteenth time what makes F-35 unique. It really is invisible to enemies. When F-35 participates in training exercises, it typically defeats adversary aircraft at a rate of better than 20-to-1. It would do the same in wartime against Russian or Chinese fighters, because it was designed to absorb or deflect radar energy, so opposing pilots can't see it before they are shot down. In addition, F-35 is equipped with an advanced jamming system that tricks or suppresses hostile radars, both in the air and on the ground. Enemy radars might detect something in the distance, but they can't track it or target it. Also, F-35's powerful turbofan engine masks and dissipates heat before heat-seeking missiles can home in. It is more than a fighter. F-35 isn't just the most survivable combat aircraft ever built, it is also the most versatile. In its fighter role it can clear the skies of opposing aircraft that threaten U.S. forces. In its strike role, it can precisely destroy a vast array of targets on the ground (or at sea) with a dozen different smart bombs and missiles. But that is just the beginning. F-35's onboard sensors can collect and share intelligence from diverse sources across the spectrum. Its jamming system and air-to-air munitions make it a superior escort for less survivable aircraft. Its vertical-takeoff-and-landing variant can land anywhere Marines need it to be, while its Air Force version can carry nuclear weapons to provide regional deterrence. The cost of each plane has fallen steadily. As the government planned, the cost to manufacture each F-35 has fallen steadily with each new production lot. If fact, it has fallen at a faster rate than Pentagon estimators expected. At $78 million, the price tag for the Air Force variant in the latest lot is similar to that for the F-16 which the new plane will replace, even though it is much more capable. It is also far below the list price for commercial jetliners. The cost of keeping F-35s operational and ready for combat is also falling. The cost per flight hour for each plane has fallen 40% since 2015, and further savings are expected as maintenance procedures are refined. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -0.4% LMT -0.4% LMT -0.4% (a contributor to my think tank) has proposed a performance-based logistics package in which it would assume much of the financial risk for assuring the fighters are fit for combat. Many U.S. allies have committed to the program. A majority of America's most important allies have elected to replace their Cold War fighters with the F-35. These include Australia, Belgium, Demark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea and the United Kingdom. Several of these countries helped to pay for the plane's development, and now contribute to its production. Allies favor the F-35 for its price and performance, but also because coalition warfare unfolds more smoothly when participants share the same capabilities. The “interoperability” of so many friendly air forces flying the same highly survivable, versatile fighter will ease the challenge of executing complex war plans in the future. The domestic economic impact is huge. The F-35 airframe is integrated in Texas. Its engines are made in Connecticut. Its jamming system is manufactured in New Hampshire. Altogether, there are 1,800 U.S. based suppliers to the program sustaining over a quarter-million jobs. The annual economic impact of the program in the U.S. is estimated at $49 billion. Additional suppliers are located in allied countries. Whether at home or abroad, the vast scale of the F-35 program, with over 3,000 aircraft likely to be delivered, has a significant impact on communities. Although national security is the sole rationale for building the plane, it helps to pay for houses and schools in thousands of communities, and makes a sizable contribution to the U.S. trade balance. Because of F-35, America will dominate the global market for tactical aircraft through mid-century. Companies engaged in building F-35 contribute to my think tank. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/12/the-five-most-important-facts-about-the-f-35-fighter/?ss=aerospace-defense&sh=ee75fa760b57
April 25, 2024 | International, Aerospace
Ukraine's ambassador to Canada has called out the Trudeau government over a decision to grant Airbus Defence and Space a waiver that will allow the European aerospace giant to continue to use Russian titanium in the manufacture of its aircraft engines. It comes after the company vowed to find a new supplier in 2022.