Here’s what’s behind France’s 72% jump in weapons exports

On the same subject

• 

  July 9, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Airbus and Saab consider challenge to Boeing Wedgetail for UK

  By: Andrew Chuter and Beth Stevenson LONDON -- Two of Europe's top aerospace defense companies are discussing combining their airborne early warning capabilities in an attempt to head off a possible sole-source British purchase of the Boeing Wedgetail. The talks are centered on a potential collaboration bringing together an Airbus-built platform with a version of Saab's Erieye radar, said two sources familiar with the discussions. But a third source though sought to dampen expectations of a deal saying the talks were not exclusive and both companies were also talking to various other potential partners. The British are considering replacing their venerable, and increasingly unreliable, Boeing Sentry E-3D fleet with a new airborne early warning aircraft for the Royal Air Force. The Sentry's are currently due to stay in service with the RAF until 2035, subject to a capability sustainment program to extend their service life. News that the two companies are discussing a potential tie-up comes just three days after UK Parliamentary defence committee chairman Julian Lewis wrote an open letter to British defense procurement minister Guto Bebb urging the MoD to ensure that any tender for a new surveillance aircraft must be open to fair competition, and not awarded sole-source to the Wedgetail. The letter said that it would be “particularly inappropriate for a competition to be foregone in favour of Boeing following their involvement in the imposition of punitive tariffs against Bombardier last year [over regional jet subsidies].” The fight with Boeing threatened Bombardier manufacturing facilities in Northern Ireland with substantial job losses. Airbus didn't confirm that talks were taking place with Saab. But in a statement, it unsurprisingly supported the calls for an open competition -- and gave a clue as to what it sees as potential platforms for a possible British requirement. “As the biggest supplier of large aircraft to the Royal Air Force, Airbus would welcome a competition to present a market leading and cost-effective solution for the RAF's future AWACS requirements,” said an Airbus spokesman. “Building on our successful experience in converting commercial aircraft into the world's market-leading tanker, Airbus is working on further opportunities to use the A330 and A320 as the basis for new mission aircraft,” said the spokesman. To the same effect, Saab also welcomed an open competition from the government to replace the Sentry fleet, although it did not go into specifics regarding the exact offering it would expect to pitch should a competition be held. “Saab, as the one of the world's leading suppliers of airborne surveillance and air battle management systems, would enthusiastically pursue an open competition to replace the UK's aging E-3D fleet, should the UK MoD choose to issue a requirement,” a company spokesman said. Potential signing Late last month, The Times newspaper reported the MoD was heading for a possible sole source buy of between four and six Wedgetail aircraft at a cost of up to £3 billion to replace the Sentry fleet. The NATO summit in Brussels, the Royal International Air Tattoo, or the Farnborough air show later this month, have been touted as possible venues for an announcement. The MoD declined to comment on whether a Wedgetail deal was likely or imminent. ‘Any decision on the way forward for the Sentry capability will be taken in the best interests of national security in the face of intensifying threats, and only after full consideration. We tender contracts competitively wherever appropriate. It is too early to comment further at this time,' said an MoD spokesman. An Australian air force Wedgetail is scheduled to appear at the RIAT show starting July 13 at Fairford, southern England. The 737-based jet has also been sold to Turkey and South Korea. The letter raised the committee's concerns over the state of the RAF's Sentry fleet, saying it was in a poor state of maintenance and often only a single aircraft in the six strong fleet was available at any one time. A statement accompanying the letter said reports have emerged that as part of the Modernising Defence Programme review being conducted by the MoD it is considering cancelling the sustainment program and replacing the Sentry fleet with a new aircraft. The letter from the lawmakers reflects increasing concern on the committee about the award of non-competitive contracts with overseas companies for major defense equipment requirements. The most recent of those was the MoD decision to buy Artec-built Boxer mechanized infantry vehicles from Germany without a competition, but the U.S. industry has also benefited from several sole-source deals in recent times. Boeing has particularly rankled competitors after winning two major UK contracts in 2016 without a competition: the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the AH-64E Apache attack rotorcraft, the selection of which were announced at that year's Farnborough air show. Lewis said in the letter that the committee had “in the light of convincing evidence of at least one credible alternative to Wedgetail,” it can see “absolutely no reason why, yet again, to dispense with open competition.” It's not known exactly who the committee is referring to, but an Airbus/Saab combination would appear to qualify as being highly credible. Saab's well regarded Erieye radar has sold widely around the world on turboprop and regional jet platforms with countries like Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Greece and Sweden operating the capability. Most recently it secured a deal with the United Arab Emirates for the delivery of five of the new GlobalEye early warning and control aircraft which uses the Bombardier 6000 business jet as a platform and boasts a new extended range version of Erieye. Saab executives at the roll-out of the GlobalEye in February said they had briefed the British on the aircraft's capabilities, but their view was the RAF still wanted a larger cabin than a business jet could provide. One option to meet that requirement is the possible use of almost new A330 tanker aircraft available under the AirTanker private finance initiative arrangement to provide inflight refuelling capacity to the RAF. Fourteen A330s were built for AirTanker, in which Airbus is a shareholder, with nine aircraft being available constantly for the RAF and the remainder of the airframes leased out to other users, but available for immediate return to air refueling duties in a crisis. The wings of Airbus' commercial airliners are manufactured in the UK, and uncertainty surrounding the terms of the nation's impending exit from the European Union has caused the company to issue a strong warning to the government that it may move the work elsewhere if Brexit does not favor movement of parts, or the certification of the wings in line with European standards. CEO Tom Enders has been vocal on his views regarding the situation, but opening up other areas of work in which companies like Airbus may participate - such as an open competition for the AWACS replacement – could help companies like Airbus who feel the government has overlooked their interests in the UK. Other executive though wonder whether Brexit supporting Government ministers in Britain are in any mood to do Airbus any favors in sectors like defense procurement. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/07/06/airbus-and-saab-consider-challenge-to-boeing-wedgetail-for-uk/

• 

  February 14, 2019 | International, C4ISR

  What the Pentagon’s new AI strategy means for cybersecurity

  By: Justin Lynch The new Pentagon artificial intelligence strategy serves as a roadmap for how the American military will embrace machine learning in future cyber operations, which could be a boon for companies who invest in the technology. Released Feb 12, the Pentagon's strategy shows how the American military will rely on artificial intelligence as a defensive tool. “We will increase our focus on defensive cybersecurity of hardware and software platforms as a precondition for secure uses of AI,” the Pentagon's new strategy states. “ In order to ensure DoD AI systems are safe, secure, and robust, we will fund research into AI systems that have a lower risk of accidents; are more resilient, including to hacking and adversarial spoofing.” A particular focus of the new strategy is researching “emergent effects,” which is what happens when two artificial intelligence systems interact. The Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, for one, is conducting studies into how artificial intelligence can protect soldiers' tactical networks and communications from cyberattacks. The Pentagon's artificial intelligence strategy comes as both the American military and hackers have embraced machine learning for cyberattacks. According to an analysis by Fifth Domain, more than half of the new challenges and programs announced by the intelligence community's research arm in 2018 involve machine learning or predictive analytics, which represents a potential boon for cybersecurity researchers. In December, the Pentagon announced that Air Force Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan would be head of a new artificial intelligence center. Hackers are using artificial intelligence during cyberattacks, Sam Curry, the chief security officer at Cybereason, a threat intelligence firm, told Fifth Domain. Curry said that a particular risk with artificial intelligence is the use of “second order chaotic systems,” where events cause data inputs to change, using the stock market as an example. “Second order systems with badly applied, overreacting machine learning are prone to exploitation,” Curry said. With the release of the artificial intelligence strategy, the Pentagon is attempting to combat significant investments in machine learning by other countries. “Other nations, particularly China and Russia, are making significant investments in AI for military purposes, including in applications that raise questions regarding international norms and human rights,” the strategy says. “The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to adopt AI will result in legacy systems irrelevant to the defense of our people, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living, and growing challenges to societies that have been built upon individual freedoms.” https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2019/02/13/what-the-pentagons-new-ai-strategy-means-for-cybersecurity/

• 

  October 23, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  Talk of national 5G plan from DoD causes confusion, concern among lawmakers

  Joe Gould and Andrew Eversden The White House is reportedly pressuring the Pentagon to lease some of its prized spectrum for the lucrative 5G market to a single politically connected company, Rivada, using a non-competitive process. The White House's push to fast track a contract for mid-band spectrum to Rivada Networks has alarmed senior administration officials, according to CNN. Rivada and the Pentagon have both rejected those reports, but the denials haven't squelched concerns on Capitol Hill that the administration is using the Defense Department to make an end-run around regulators in pursuit of an expensive boondoggle. The concern on Capitol Hill and elsewhere stems from a September RFI from the Department of Defense that seeks industry input on dynamic spectrum sharing, or ways the Defense Department and commercial entities can safely operate on the same spectrum bands. The RFI asks “how could DoD own and operate 5G networks for its domestic operations?” and “what are the potential issues with DoD owning and operating independent networks for its 5G operations?,” which has fueled fears and pushback in industry about DoD nationalizing a 5G network. In a statement to C4ISRNET on Wednesday, Pentagon spokesperson Russ Goemaere said “No, DOD does not intend to own and operate a national 5G network.” Rather, he said, the DoD needs to better understand how dynamic spectrum sharing can support training, readiness and lethality in the contiguous United States. "This RFI will help DOD understand best methods and approaches for owning and operating independent DoD 5G networks supporting ‘spectrum for training, readiness, and lethality,' " Goemaere said. Rivada has also denied allegations that it's in favor of a nationalized 5G network. “We want to add our voice to those condemning, in the strongest terms, anyone planning to nationalize 5G in America. Whoever they may be. Assuming they exist,” the company said in a statement Oct. 8. The company also released part of its response to the RFI earlier in the week that listed several reasons the DoD shouldn't operate a national 5G network, including costs of operations and maintenance, as well as limited coverage and capacity. Frustration on the Hill The plan has been met with opposition from the wireless industry, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and reportedly senior officials within the Trump administration. On Wednesday, Smith told reporters he too is opposed to what he has heard so far. “I don't initially support the idea of DoD controlling the 5G network and building it. Someone's going to have to do a lot of convincing to show me that's a good idea,” Smith said. Smith said he agrees with U.S. efforts to counter Chinese dominance in 5G and build a western alternative, and he supports spectrum sharing between the Pentagon and private sector as a way there. But the prospect of a nationalized, DoD-led 5G network has “a lot of folks a little bit nervous” about its feasibility and effectiveness, Smith said, adding the administration's true plans remained unclear. “There is concern if DoD comes in and says, ‘we're just going to build and control the network' — and it's a little murky right now exactly where the Trump administration's at or whether or not they're going to try to go forward with that plan,” Smith said. “That's what we're trying to get some answers to right now.” The direct nature of the White House's push, and emphasis on a fast result, has frustrated and confused congressional committees and agencies covering commercial spectrum allocation — such as the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and Federal Communications Commission — that are traditionally involved in forming telecommunications policy, according to one congressional staffer. Leading the effort on Capitol Hill are Fox News commentator and GOP strategist Karl Rove, who is also a lobbyist for Rivada, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a close ally of the president. “When you have somebody going directly to members, that's usually a sign they're trying to pull one over because they're not interested in doing an evidenced-based approach, talking to experts for that member of Congress. Using people like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich was an indicator early on that Rivada was not interested in engaging in good faith, but was interested in corporate welfare,” the staffer said. Two lawmakers with jurisdiction over the issue — Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr., D-N.J., and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa. — said they are probing reports the White House had “instructed DoD to proceed immediately to a Request for Proposal (‘RFP') in order to move forward toward a national 5G network.” “According to press accounts, several political operatives or lobbyists with close ties to President Trump or his staff – including Karl Rove, Peter Thiel, Newt Gingrich and Brad Parscale – are pushing for the seismic shift in spectrum policy contemplated by the RFI,” they said in a statement this month, referring to the DoD RFI on dynamic spectrum sharing. “These reports also suggest these Republican operatives are working for the benefit of a specific company, Rivada, Inc., which has long championed a national network that Rivada would construct and operate using its sharing technology.” They argued that DoD has “limited or no legal authority ... to construct, operate, or maintain a commercial communications network or lease its assigned electromagnetic spectrum (‘spectrum') to private entities to provide commercial communications service,” and asked that the Government Accountability Office conduct a legal analysis to confirm it. On the other side of the aisle, a Republican aide to the committee warned that Congress would have to be consulted before DoD proceeds beyond the initial RFI. “DOD is collecting information to build a public record, which is never a bad thing, but if the DOD takes additional steps forward we would have to evaluate whatever those proposals may be," the aide said. "[Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore.] has publicly stated that he opposes a nationalized 5G network, as do all five FCC commissioners.” Eighteen Senate Republicans led by Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., wrote to President Donald Trump, to argue against, “nationalizing 5G and experimenting with untested models for 5G deployment,” and in favor of previous White House efforts, which emphasized the private sector building multiple 5G networks. They did not mention Rivada. “While we recognize the need for secure communications networks for our military, we are concerned that such a proposal threatens our national security,” their letter said. “When bad actors only need to penetrate one network, they have a greater likelihood of disrupting the United States' communications services.” The spectrum sharing RFI Dynamic spectrum sharing is a technology the Defense Department is working to develop. The Pentagon recently announced six vendors would take part in a test bed at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, part of $600 million investment into 5G experimentation. The new RFI for spectrum sharing, developed in part by the office of DoD chief information officer, is another step forward in developing ways to share spectrum so the DoD systems that will rely on 5G, like many radar systems, can continue operating unencumbered. A major problem, according to former FCC commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, is that the RFI is “vaguely worded and at times not very accurately worded.” “A benign interpretation of the RFI is that they're really focused on the technology and not on non-federal networks,” said Furchtgott-Roth, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “But the less benign is that ‘5G' is really a codeword for civilian networks.” Though the RFI has caused outcry, Furchtgott-Roth told C4ISRNET that the RFI did raise “good questions” about spectrum sharing with commercial companies. One of the routes the Pentagon explores in the RFI is leasing the spectrum it owns instead of reallocating. “The Department believes that more spectrum sharing must be the norm and that technology is a way to achieve greater sharing,” said Goemaere, the DoD spokesman. “As a result, DOD is looking for new approaches to spectrum policy, access, and use, and for innovative spectrum sharing technologies. This RFI seeks to expand DOD's knowledge base, understand the state-of-the-art, and inform future DoD research, development and acquisition activities.” Asked if the source selection process would be competitive, Goemaere told C4ISRNET that the DoD will “follow Federal Acquisition Regulations if any further acquisition is sought on this effort.” Furchtgott-Roth said that the leasing aspect raises questions about the DoD's authority to rent out federal assets — a piece that the DoD is also looking for answers to in its RFI. Any RFP would likely need to be a multi-award contract. Given the DoD's challenges with sole-source contracts in the past, particularly its Joint Enterprise Infrastructure Cloud, multiple vendors are likely needed. “It's hard to imagine that the Pentagon would want to repeat that disaster,” Furchtgott-Roth said. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/5g/2020/10/22/talk-of-national-5g-plan-from-dod-causes-confusion-concern-among-lawmakers/