General Dynamics To Invest $1 Billion In Production Facilities Upgrades With Focus on Subs

On the same subject

• 

  May 17, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Contracts for May 14, 2021

  Today

• 

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

  Choosing the right commercial tech for government

  By: Meagan Metzger In today's crisis-stricken world, it is heartening to see leaders recognizing the importance of government support for innovative, private sector solutions to the problems facing the defense industry. For the Department of Defense, reforming policies and refocusing priorities so that commercial tech can be successfully implemented to support the defense industry's mission is essential. The DoD's endorsement not only encourages emerging tech startups to consider government compliance and scale in their business models from the very beginning; it also protects our national security — and service members in uniform — by putting the most innovative technology into play. But creating more opportunities for commercial tech companies to secure government contracts is only the beginning. For government agencies to successfully take advantage of innovative tech from the private sector, a few things need to happen — and the sooner, the better. First, the government needs to look beyond legacy contracts. As has been noted by venture capital leaders, the announced provisions of the coronavirus relief legislation, the CARES Act, “to streamline the Defense Department contracting process” currently apply only to contracts worth $100 million or more. This excludes emerging commercially successful tech companies that could have a significant impact at the government level. Separate, though related, are needed reforms to the Small Business Innovation Research program. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2020 provides additional SBIR flexibility for small businesses that are more than 50 percent owned by venture capital, but the DoD has yet to fully promulgate this new flexibility authority. Until eligibility standards are adjusted, the DoD is missing the chance to work with proven, VC-backed companies. Of course not all commercial tech companies are equipped to support government missions; and to ignore the importance of a rigorous evaluation process is even more harmful than ignoring commercial tech all together. Finding emerging tech is easy. Evaluating and equipping tech companies for success in government is hard, particularly when national security is a critical concern. The COVID-19 crisis has made it even more apparent that government agencies need to be able to implement tech solutions quickly and trust that they will perform as expected. A tech company with proven success in the private sector may draw the government's attention and show that it can deliver, but there are other equally important indicators to consider when determining if a company is capable of performing as expected at the government level. The Pentagon, like any government agency, must rely on data-backed advice and expertise to identify which commercial tech solutions are most likely to succeed in the federal market. Finding technology companies should not be a quantity play, but focus more on fit and quality. Moving fast requires working with private sector partners who have experience vetting tech companies for government contracts, which we've seen leaders do, like Space and Missile Systems Center's Air Force Col. Russell Teehan and the head of Air Force Program Executive Office Digital Steven Wert. Partners that are federally focused — with deep knowledge of government problem sets and missions — can identify which tech companies are viable technically and will be viable in the federal market. Assessing tech's viability requires specific experience evaluating a set of qualitative characteristics unique to this market, in addition to the typical “can they work with government" questions like: “Where is the code compiled?” Government agencies should also look to VCs and accelerators that can specifically guide tech companies through the government market contracting process and equip them to succeed in the long term. For instance, in 2019, the United States Air Force worked with Dcode to scout technology for the service's Multi-Domain Operations Challenge, and seven of the 30 finalists were companies that had completed the Dcode accelerator to prepare for success in the federal market. Supporting these tech companies requires more than just a singular contract award. To get over the “valley of death,” companies have to understand everything from compliance to how to staff, rework operational processes and market effectively, to name a few. There is no question that working with the right emerging tech companies is imperative for the DoD and other government agencies. But at a moment in history when time is particularly of the essence, there is no room for trial and error when it comes to identifying which tech companies can meet the government's specific needs. By working with private sector partners that have extensive government expertise and proven results, the DoD can confidently implement innovative technology that addresses its most critical needs in a time of crises and well into the future. Meagan Metzger is the founder and CEO of Dcode. She also serves on an advisory board for Booz Allen Hamilton, and another advisory board for the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum. She previously worked as chief operating officer of a mobile and cloud company, as well as chief strategy officer at an IT consultancy. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/14/choosing-the-right-commercial-tech-for-government/

• 

  April 9, 2020 | International, Naval, Land

  The Marines want to get rid of their tanks. Here’s why.

  Shawn Snow A series of wargames conducted between 2018 and 2019 helped inform the Corps' decision to divest of tanks and outmoded units and equipment that will have trouble surviving in fight with peer adversaries like China, according to a Marine Corps force redesign report. From those wargames the Corps learned that the unit that shoots first has a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield and forces that can operate inside the range of enemy long-range precision fires “are more operationally relevant than forces which must rapidly maneuver to positions outside the ”weapons engagement zone, the report reads. The Corps' decision to divest of tanks, cut ground cannon artillery and light attack air platforms has stoked some criticism. Tanks historically have had success in high-end and urban warfare for decades boasting devastating firepower highly lethal to ground forces. But tanks and armored vehicles have had trouble surviving against the threat of precision strike and the plethora of drone and reconnaissance systems flooding conflict zones across the Middle East. For recent evidence, a Turkish launched operation targeting Syrian regime army troops in late February decimated more than a hundred tanks and armored vehicles, dozens of artillery pieces and hundreds of Syrian forces, according to the Turkish National Ministry of Defense. Turkey posted videos highlighting a mixed role of drones, Paladin artillery systems and aircraft pounding Syrian armor from the skies over the course of several days. The Syrian army appeared helpless to defend from the onslaught of long range systems. Even tanks camouflaged by buildings and bushes were no match for sensors and thermal imaging watching from the skies. The problem is exacerbated by the number of sophisticated anti-tank systems flooding counterinsurgency conflicts across the globe and access to long range drones once only in control by state actors are now being operated by militia groups. In Libya, the Libyan National Army has the upper hand in its drone war with the UN-backed Tripoli government. It's equipped with an alleged UAE-supplied Chinese drone known as the Wing Long II that boasts a 2,000 km range through a satellite link and is reportedly armed with Chinese manufactured Blue Arrow 7 precision strike air-to-surface missiles. “Mobility inside the WEZ [ weapons engagement zone] is a competitive advantage and an operational imperative,” the Marine Corps report reads. The Corps instead is looking for mobile systems and units that can survive within the reach of precision fires to “attrit adversary forces," create dilemmas for the enemy and “consume adversary ISR resources,” according to the report. “The hider-versus finder competition is real. Losing this competition has enormous and potentially catastrophic consequences,” the report reads. Reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance capabilities will be key on the modern battlefield. “We have sufficient evidence to conclude that this capability [tanks], despite its long and honorable history in the wars of the past, is operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future,” the report said about the divestment of Marine tanks. But tanks aren't disappearing from the fight. The Corps says heavy ground armor will still be provided by the Army. The Corps says it plans to develop heavily into unmanned ground and air systems and rocket artillery and long range fires. According to the report, the Corps is increasing its rocket artillery batteries by 14 to 21 over a 10-year period. Wargaming that inferred the Corps' force redesign efforts were carried out by the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, among others. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why