Future US Navy weapons will need lots of power. That’s a huge engineering challenge.

On the same subject

• 

  January 4, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  New in 2019: Air Force looks for new bomb designs to fight Russia and China

  By: Kyle Rempfer A growing cohort of Air Force researchers are arguing that the service needs to undergo a munitions revolution if it is to take on a peer-level adversary in open conflict. “We're developing a range of technologies to enable next-generation and improve precision effects on the battlefield,” Col. Garry Haase, who helms the Air Force Research Lab Munitions Directorate, told an audience at the Air Force Association Annual Conference this fall. In some instances, that will mean more powerful munitions to breach and destroy Russian and Chinese structures in the event of war. “There is now a shift in emphasis away from minimizing to maximizing effects in a high-end fight,” said John Wilcox, vice president of advanced programs and technology at Northrop Grumman, at the conference. “Requirements from our missions directorate say we continue to have to deal with the whole spectrum of threats as we shift to more of a near-peer threat focus,” Wilcox added. “We are looking at larger munitions with bigger effects.” And while neither members of the AFA panel named Russia or China specifically, a recent study by the Mitchell Institute, which is aligned with the Air Force Association, certainly did. In the document, titled “The Munition Effects Revolution," several retired senior Air Force officers argue that the U.S. munitions arsenal is overdue for a shakeup. “The bomb body, a steel shell filled with explosive material, is relatively unchanged across the past 100 years," the study reads. "But some elements of modern munitions have significantly evolved—particularly guidance elements. Munition effects—the destructive envelope of heat, blast, and fragmentation—remain essentially unchanged.” High demand for combat aircraft is a key driver behind the need for enhanced munitions options, according to the Mitchell Institute. “The Air Force is currently operating the smallest and oldest aircraft force in its history,” the study reads. “Additionally, current mission capable rates are low and pilots are in increasingly short supply. To best meet combatant command requirements amidst these constraints, it is crucial to ensure each sortie flown and every bomb dropped yields maximum potential.” https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/01/03/new-in-2019-air-force-looks-for-new-bomb-designs-to-fight-russia-and-china

• 

  August 31, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Suisse: Six milliards en jeu pour renouveler la flotte aérienne de l’armée

  Après l'échec de l'achat des avions Gripen en 2014, le peuple suisse est à nouveau appelé à voter pour ou contre l'acquisition d'avions de combats. La Suisse doit renouveler sa flotte d'avions de combat. Les appareils en service actuellement seront en fin de vie d'ici 2030. Le Conseil fédéral et le Parlement veulent acquérir de nouveaux avions pour six milliards de francs. Les opposants y voient une dépense inutile. Le peuple tranchera le 27 septembre. La votation porte sur le montant maximal destiné à l'achat des avions de combat qui remplaceront les 26 F-5 Tiger et les 30 F/A-18 de l'armée. Les premiers, acquis en 1978, sont déjà obsolètes. Ils ne peuvent voler que de jour et par temps clair, et ne servent plus qu'à l'instruction. Les seconds atteindront leur limite dans une dizaine d'années. Après l'échec de l'achat des avions Gripen en 2014, le gouvernement a décidé de ne soumettre aux urnes que le cadre général de l'acquisition. Le choix du type et du nombre d'appareils nécessaires lui reviendra ensuite. L'enveloppe de 6 milliards de francs, soit deux fois plus que le Gripen, est plafonnée et ne pourra pas être augmentée. Elle pourra en revanche être ajustée à l'évolution des prix. L'achat des nouveaux avions de combat recueille dans les derniers sondages une majorité en sa faveur. Le clivage droite/gauche est marqué, le camp bourgeois étant favorable à la dépense et le camp rose-vert opposé. Objectif controversé Pour le comité référendaire, composé du PS, des Verts et du Groupe pour une suisse sans armée, dépenser 6 milliards de francs pour les avions est une fausse promesse de sécurité. Le scénario d'une guerre aérienne en Europe n'est pas réaliste. La Suisse doit plutôt se préparer à de nouveaux types de menace: catastrophes, cyberattaques, pandémies ou changement climatique. Les avions de combat ne pourront pas contrer ces menaces. Des investissements dans la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique ou la pénurie d'électricité seraient plus sensés, selon les opposants. L'émergence de nouvelles formes de guerre ne remplace pas les anciennes menaces, répond le camp des partisans dans les rangs duquel se trouvent des membres du PLR, de l'UDC, du PDC, du PBD, des Vert'libéraux, du PEV et de nombreuses organisations militaires. Bien qu'il n'y ait pas de conflit armé en Suisse, les conditions peuvent rapidement changer. Il s'agit de l'avenir de la politique de sécurité. Une menace imprévisible La menace évolue constamment et la population doit être protégée contre les attaques imprévisibles, argumente la ministre de la Défense Viola Amherd. L'armée de l'air a de nombreuses t'ches pour lesquelles des avions de combat sont nécessaires. Elle intervient si un avion se trouve en situation critique ou s'il viole les règles. Lorsque Genève accueille une conférence internationale sur la paix, des avions doivent en permanence être dans les airs. L'armée doit également pouvoir contrôler de manière plus intense ses frontières en cas de tensions dans les environs et s'assurer qu'aucun appareil militaire étranger ne survole le territoire. Elle doit protéger son espace aérien en cas d'attaque directe. Coûts à définir L'argent dépensé pour les avions fera défaut dans d'autres domaines comme l'éducation, la santé, la sécurité publique ou sociale ou encore la culture, rétorquent les opposants. Cet achat serait en outre un chèque en blanc donné au gouvernement et au Parlement. Le jour de la votation, les électeurs ne connaîtront pas les coûts concrets. Si l'on prend en compte l'ensemble des coûts sur la durée de vie des avions, la facture s'élève à 24 milliards, avancent les référendaires. Le Département fédéral de la défense estime pour sa part la dépense à 18 milliards. Le PS propose l'acquisition d'avions de combat légers, moins onéreux. Pour Viola Amherd, ces appareils ne valent rien pour le service de police de l'air et encore moins pour protéger la Suisse en cas de crise. Ils ne volent pas assez haut, sont trop lents ou n'ont pas les radars ou l'armement nécessaires. Compensations prévues L'arrêté sur lequel le peuple doit se prononcer inclut des conditions. Il précise que le constructeur remportant l'appel d'offres devra investir 60% du montant du contrat dans l'économie suisse (65% en Suisse alémanique, 30% en Suisse romande et 5% en Suisse italienne). L'achat sera coordonné avec la modernisation du système de défense sol-air. Quatre jets sont encore en lice: le Rafale du français Dassault, l'Eurofighter de l'européen Airbus et les deux avions américains, le Super Hornet de Boeing et le F-35A de Lockheed-Martin. https://www.lematin.ch/story/six-milliards-en-jeu-pour-renouveler-la-flotte-aerienne-de-larmee-442405814349

• 

  January 2, 2019 | International, C4ISR

  Four big questions for cybersecurity in 2019

  By: Justin Lynch How will cybersecurity experts remember 2018? In the past year, the Trump administration announced it would take more offensive hacking operations against foreign countries, the Department of Justice announcedsweeping indictments against Chinese hackers and the U.S. intelligence community reported that foreign countries continued to interfere in American elections. So what comes next? Here are four overarching questions for the cybersecurity community in 2019: What will the new Pentagon chief do with expanded cyber powers? In August, the president gave the secretary of Defense the ability to conduct cyberattacks against foreign countries so long as they do not interfere with the national interest of the United States, according to four current and former White House and intelligence officials. But the resignation of Jim Mattis, the Defense secretary, means the next Pentagon chief will have a broad arsenal of cyber authorities. For the cyber community, Patrick Shanahan, the current acting secretary, is a relative unknown. He has not given significant insight into how he views the role of offensive cyberattacks for the Pentagon, and his scheduled Jan. 1 elevation comes as some in the Trump administration and U.S. Cyber Command have pushed for even more authorities. However, he has spoken at length about the need for the defense industry to bolster its own cyber practices. Although the appointment of Shanahan as acting Pentagon chief is temporary, he is on the short list of officials who may take on the job full time. The new Pentagon chief may also have to decide when the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command should split. Both bodies are led by Gen. Paul Nakasone, but that may change. Cyber Command is in the process of gaining its own infrastructure to conduct offensive cyberattacks, and a Pentagon official told Fifth Domain in November that it appeared the split was all but certain to happen in the coming years, although no formal decision as been made. What comes next in the U.S.-China cyber relationship? The Department of Justice released a flurry of indictments against Chinese hackers in 2018, accusing Beijing's cyber sleuths of infiltrating American government agencies and defense contractors. The most recent round of allegations came Dec. 18, and the legal action could continue in 2019. While announcing the most recent indictments, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein accused China of breaking an agreement not to use hacked materials for commercial use, although he did not offer evidence. The hacking allegations come amid a broader trade war between the United States and China. Experts have told Fifth Domain a trade war could increase digital tension between the two nations. If the trade war continues, experts say they see little incentive for China to limit its cyberattacks. Will America suffer blowback for more offensive cyber operations? When the Trump administration announced the United States would take more offensive actions in cyberspace, some in the federal cybersecurity community criticized the plan as faulty. “The side effects of the strategy of ‘persistent engagement' and ‘defend forward' are still ill-understood,” Max Smeets and Herb Lin, experts at Stanford University wrote for Lawfare. “A United States that is more powerful in cyberspace does not necessarily mean one that is more stable or secure.” Experts also warn of making any rush judgments about the effectiveness of these offensive cyberattacks. Current and former intelligence officials worry that uncovering and attributing a hack can take more than a year, and, even then, that process is not perfect. One former official pointed to the leaked documents about Russian targeting of American election infrastructure in 2016 that was sent to the news organization the Intercept. It took months for the intelligence community to understand the full extent of the hack, the official said, an example of how long it takes to detect a cyberattack. However, all of that means it is reasonable to expect that the merits of the new offensive cyber operations may not be known publicly for years. Will Congress take action to streamline cybersecurity contracting and research? Yes, changing the way government does business is ambitious. But experts argue that if the United States wants to keep up with digital innovations from China and other countries it is necessary to change the American government's relationship with the private sector and academia. The effort to streamline cybersecurity funding and research will fall to the new Congress, in which Democrats will take over the House of Representatives. But when it comes to the U.S. government's relationship with the cyber industry, structural barriers to innovation remain. On average, it takes roughly seven years for an idea to get a contract inside the U.S. government. In that length of time, a product is already two generations old. Former Pentagon officials have used the digital fight against the Islamic State as an example of how long the process takes. It took roughly two years for Cyber Command to receive the proper equipment and training after the order to digitally defeat the Islamic State, officials told Fifth Domain. In addition, the cybersecurity industry is watching a series of bills in Congress. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., has pushed for a streamlined security clearance process, and industry officials told Fifth Domain they expect him to continue the effort in the new year. The bill could make it easier and cheaper to get a security clearance. And many in the federal cybersecurity community have called for a change in academia's relationship with cybersecurity. The universities and research institutions in the United States focusing on quantum computing are “subpar,” George Barnes, deputy director at the NSA said in June. Experts say that quantum computers will make traditional cybersecurity methods obsolete because of the expansive computing power. However, new investments in artificial intelligence and a new Solarium Commission, which was created to help contextualize cyber in the broader national and economic security discussion, may provide solutions to these problems. https://www.fifthdomain.com/industry/2018/12/31/four-big-questions-for-cybersecurity-in-2019