Back to news

June 15, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR, Security

Integration is the next step for Air Force information warfare leaders

Following a significant merger and reorganization of its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and cyber enterprises, Air Force leaders are turning their attention to how these functions can work more closely together.

“We're maturing this organization, moving past merging and focusing on integration,” Lt. Gen. Mary O'Brien, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and cyber effects operations, said during a Joint Service Academy Cybersecurity Conference webinar June 11. “We find that our intelligence and cyber roles are focused increasingly interdependent and interconnected.”

Within the last 18 months, the Air Force reconfigured its intelligence shop, formerly known as the deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and added cyber effects operations. That change was followed by the merger of two numbered Air Forces – 24th Air Force and 25th Air Force – to create 16th Air Force last fall, the service's first information warfare entity.

Officials have said in this new setup the deputy chief of staff handles the workforce, concepts, training, platforms, tools and integration. This is done so operators at 16th Air Force have the guidance they need.

O'Brien added that the Air Force is now working at integrating the 2018 ISR flight plan and the 2019 cyber warfare flight plan. Each sought to chart a path for how the Air Force will fight in each respective area into the next decade as part of a great power competition.

The ISR flight plan examined transforming the enterprise to meet future threats as opposed to modernization. The cyber flight guided funding, resourcing, training and capabilities for Air Force cyber offices.

O'Brien also said integration related to network defense has proven critical with the increased telework during the pandemic.

Intelligence and cyber experts are “identifying the threats and they're posturing to defend against them,” she said. "This was not always the case.”

https://www.c4isrnet.com/information-warfare/2020/06/11/integration-is-the-next-step-for-air-force-information-warfare-leaders/

On the same subject

  • Elbit Systems Selected by Boeing to Supply Structural Components for the F-15 Aircraft

    September 25, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Elbit Systems Selected by Boeing to Supply Structural Components for the F-15 Aircraft

    Haifa, Israel, September 24, 2019 – Elbit Systems Ltd. (“Elbit Systems”) announced today that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Elbit Systems - Cyclone Ltd. (Elbit – Cyclone), was selected by Boeing Defense, Space and Security (BDS) to supply structural components for the F-15 aircraft. Elbit – Cyclone will supply structural components including detachable fuel tanks, pylons, horizontal stabilizers and adapters to the F-15 aircraft. Yoram Shmuely, General Manager of Elbit Systems Aerospace Division, “Elbit Systems is a long-term supplier of Boeing, especially for the F-15 program, meeting quality, delivery time and cost requirements. F-15 has been a major platform in our portfolio for over two decades and we look forward to continuing our collaborative work with Boeing in the future.” About Elbit Systems Elbit Systems Ltd. is an international high technology company engaged in a wide range of defense, homeland security and commercial programs throughout the world. The Company, which includes Elbit Systems and its subsidiaries, operates in the areas of aerospace, land, and naval systems, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance ("C4ISR"), unmanned aircraft systems, advanced electro-optics, electro-optic space systems, EW suites, signal intelligence systems, data links and communications systems, radios and cyber-based systems and munitions. The Company also focuses on the upgrading of existing platforms, developing new technologies for defense, homeland security and commercial applications and providing a range of support services, including training and simulation systems. For additional information, visit: www.elbitsystems.com, follow us on Twitter or visit our official Youtube Channel. This press release contains forward‑looking statements (within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) regarding Elbit Systems Ltd. and/or its subsidiaries (collectively the Company), to the extent such statements do not relate to historical or current fact. Forward-looking statements are based on management's expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions. Forward‑looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual future results, performance and trends may differ materially from these forward‑looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation: scope and length of customer contracts; governmental regulations and approvals; changes in governmental budgeting priorities; general market, political and economic conditions in the countries in which the Company operates or sells, including Israel and the United States among others; differences in anticipated and actual program performance, including the ability to perform under long-term fixed-price contracts; and the outcome of legal and/or regulatory proceedings. The factors listed above are not all-inclusive, and further information is contained in Elbit Systems Ltd.'s latest annual report on Form 20-F, which is on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward‑looking statements speak only as of the date of this release. The Company does not undertake to update its forward-looking statements. Elbit Systems Ltd., its logo, brand, product, service and process names appearing in this Press Release are the trademarks or service marks of Elbit Systems Ltd. or its affiliated companies. All other brand, product, service and process names appearing are the trademarks of their respective holders. Reference to or use of a product, service or process other than those of Elbit Systems Ltd. does not imply recommendation, approval, affiliation or sponsorship of that product, service or process by Elbit Systems Ltd. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent, copyright, trademark or other intellectual property right of Elbit Systems Ltd. or any third party, except as expressly granted herein. Visit our Press Relations website for background materials and information regarding Elbit Systems fields of activity. David Vaaknin Vice President, Head of Corporate Communications Tel: 972-77-2946691 Cell: 972-52-8000403 E-Mail: david.vaaknin@elbitsystems.com Dana Tal-Noyman Manager International Corporate Communications Tel: 972-77-294-8809 Cell: 972-54-9998809 E-Mail: dana.tal@elbitsystems.com https://www.epicos.com/article/486074/elbit-systems-selected-boeing-supply-structural-components-f-15-aircraft

  • Airbus US pivots business strategy away from selling big platforms to the Pentagon

    July 16, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

    Airbus US pivots business strategy away from selling big platforms to the Pentagon

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — After decades of trying to break into the U.S. military aircraft market, Airbus is shifting course with a new strategy that prioritizes selling off-the-shelf sensors, data, space and intelligence capabilities that have been customized for U.S. government buyers. During a Wednesday discussion with reporters about the new direction for the business, Chris Emerson, the new chief executive of the Airbus U.S. Space and Defense division and formerly the president of Airbus Helicopters, said he wanted to move the company's focus in the United States away from the major fixed-wing platforms that are the company's bread and butter in Europe. Instead, he hopes to expand the company's presence in the growing space and intelligence markets, particularly with low-cost satellites like those made by its joint venture One Web, geospatial intelligence and imaging, and space-based sensors. “We know the Air Force needs an A400M, but I can spend 10 years trying to convince the Air Force and all the politicians that they should buy an A400M. And ultimately they will buy C-130s,” Emerson said. “So let me focus this energy, this great leadership team, on achieving something that is tangible today that the customer really needs. Yes, it's not traditional for Airbus, but it will bring the value and we'll have a better foundation if one day my successor says, ‘You know, I want to be a big platform competitor.' At least we'd have built up trust and proven that we could really meet the requirements that are demanded of it.” Although Airbus is a juggernaut in the international military and commercial aerospace market, it has always struggled to find its place among the U.S. defense prime contractors as major aircraft manufacturers. It famously lost the KC-X contract to Boeing in 2011 after a bloody and prolonged battle. Since then, the company's biggest procurement victory has been continued sales of its UH-72A Lakota helicopter to the Army. “I remember I spent eight years thinking we could bring real value on air-to-air refueling for the Air Force. But I spent eight years, and I'm frustrated because I look at it and we didn't succeed,” Emerson said. “I've asked the team, ‘Let's find a roadmap where we can actually make a mark with the customers.' And that means, I'm not going to go look at competing with Boeing and the Lockheeds and Northrop, but I'm going to look at other areas.” The U.S. customer is increasingly making investments into technologies that can augment or accelerate decision-making, he said. “That's where we start to look everything beyond an air breathing platform. We started to look at the data, the intelligence, that they need,” he said. “It could be intelligence that is geospatial-related, either Earth observation, or electro-optical, or synthetic aperture radar, or a blend that we're pulling in multi-source information.” Airbus already develops those types of capabilities in its commercial air and space businesses, and could quickly adapt them to U.S. demands, he said. When there are opportunities to offer Airbus aircraft to the U.S. military, the strategy will be to partner with American primes, Emerson said. For instance, last year Airbus and Lockheed signed a memorandum of understanding to market aerial refueling services to the U.S. Air Force using the Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport. Asked on Wednesday whether the two companies planned to compete for tanker leasing opportunities currently being considered by the Air Force, Emerson said Lockheed takes the lead on interactions with the U.S. military on aerial refueling. He added that UH-72s will continue to be manufactured alongside Airbus's commercial H125 helicopter in Columbus, Miss., but modifications, support and contracting will be performed by the Airbus U.S. Space and Defense. In addition to naming Emerson as head of the company's U.S. defense and space business, Airbus also appointed a five-person board of directors — which includes former National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency director Letitia Long and William Shelton, a retired Air Force four-star and former head of Air Force Space Command — aimed at deepening ties with the U.S. military, space and intelligence agencies. It also named a seven-person team of advisers made up of former national security officials. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/07/15/airbus-us-pivots-business-strategy-away-from-selling-big-platforms-to-the-pentagon/

  • L’avion qui aurait pu remplacer le F-35

    June 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    L’avion qui aurait pu remplacer le F-35

    Point clé: L'armée avait le choix entre quelques options lorsqu'elle recherchait le prochain chasseur furtif. Il a finalement décidé de ce qui allait devenir le F-35. Le ministère de la Défense (DoD) n'a pas eu à opter pour le F-35. Dans les années 1990, Boeing et Lockheed Martin ont soumissionné pour le prochain gros contrat de chasse, un avion qui servirait dans chacune des forces aériennes, navales et marines, ainsi que pour soutenir les forces aériennes de nombreux alliés américains. Boeing a servi le X-32; Lockheed le X-35. Le Pentagone a choisi le F-35. Compte tenu des luttes de la dernière décennie avec le Joint Strike Fighter, il est impossible de ne pas se demander ce qui aurait pu être; Et si le DoD était parti avec le X-32 de Boeing à la place, ou avec une combinaison des deux appareils? Histoire: À la fin de la guerre froide, le Pentagone a proposé un projet de chasseurs conjoints dans l'espoir de réduire la queue logistique globale des forces en campagne, ainsi que de minimiser les coûts de développement. Chacun des trois services d'avions de chasse avait besoin d'être remplacé par l'avion de 4e génération dans son inventaire; les F-15 et F-16 dans le cas de l'Air Force, et les F / A-18 et AV-8B Harrier dans le cas de la Navy et du Marine Corps. Le nouveau chasseur avait donc besoin de configurations conventionnelles, porteuses et STOVL (atterrissage vertical à décollage court). Historiquement, le DoD n'avait pas eu de chance avec les programmes conjoints, mais l'espoir était qu'une «articulation» accrue entre les services, combinée à des techniques de production plus avancées et à des procédures logistiques plus soigneusement affinées, ferait qu'un combattant partagé en valait la peine. Toutes les parties ont compris que le vainqueur de la compétition connaîtrait probablement un grand succès à l'exportation, car de nombreuses forces aériennes du monde entier avaient besoin d'un chasseur de cinquième génération. En bref, il s'agissait de la plus grosse transaction à l'horizon de l'industrie de la défense de l'après-guerre froide. Boeing et Lockheed Martin ont remporté des contrats pour développer chacun deux démonstrateurs. L'histoire continue Capacités: Construits selon les mêmes spécifications, le X-32 et le F-35 avaient des paramètres de performances relativement similaires. Décidant de rivaliser sur les coûts, Boeing a conçu le X-32 autour d'une aile delta monobloc qui s'adapterait aux trois variantes. Le X-32 n'avait pas la portance du turboréacteur entraîné par l'arbre du F-35, utilisant à la place le même système de vectorisation de poussée que l'AV-8 Harrier. Le système du X-32 était moins avancé que celui du F-35, mais aussi moins complexe. Le X-32 a été conçu pour atteindre Mach 1,6 en vol conventionnel. Il pourrait transporter six AMRAAM ou deux missiles et deux bombes dans sa baie d'armes interne. Les caractéristiques de portée et de furtivité étaient généralement similaires à celles attendues du F-35, et le corps de l'avion pouvait accueillir une grande partie de l'équipement électronique avancé que le F-35 transporte maintenant. Décision: Une chose est sûre; le X-32 était un avion ridiculement laid. Cela ne ressemblait pas tellement à la ponte d'un A-7 Corsair et à un lamantin hideusement déformé. Le F-35 n'est pas un prix d'un point de vue esthétique, sans les lignes élégantes et dangereuses du F-22, mais le X-32 a rendu le F-35 positivement sexy en comparaison. Quelle importance cela devrait-il avoir? Pas du tout. Quelle importance cela avait-il? Bonne question. Les pilotes de chasse n'aiment pas piloter des avions qui semblent pouvoir être écrasés par un hors-bord en Floride. Pour des raisons plus concrètes, la stratégie de Boeing a probablement nui à ses chances. Au lieu de construire un démonstrateur capable de répondre aux exigences des trois services, Boeing en a construit deux; l'un capable de vol supersonique conventionnel, et l'autre de décollage et d'atterrissage vertical. Le prototype de Lockheed pourrait faire les deux. Le Pentagone a également apprécié la nature innovante (bien que risquée) du turbolift du F-35. Enfin, l'expérience de Lockheed avec le F-22 a suggéré qu'il pourrait probablement gérer un autre grand projet de chasseur furtif. Conclusion: Choisi en 2001, le F-35 est devenu le plus grand projet d'approvisionnement du Pentagone de tous les temps et l'un des plus assaillis. Le X-32 a échappé à tous les défis les plus importants pour le F-35. Le X-32 n'a jamais fait face à des décennies de tests et de refonte; il n'a jamais connu de dépassements de coûts massifs; il n'a jamais été soumis à une série interminable d'articles sur la façon dont il ne pouvait pas déjouer un F-16A. La nostalgie de ce qui aurait pu être est courante dans les compétitions d'avions, et il est impossible de dire si le X-32 aurait rencontré les mêmes difficultés que le F-35. Étant donné la nature complexe des projets de chasse avancés, la réponse est presque certainement «oui». Mais avec le recul, il aurait presque certainement été plus logique de choisir un chasseur alternatif VSTOL pour le Marine Corps. Cela aurait éliminé l'aspect le plus complexe du projet «conjoint»; la nécessité de créer un avion qui partage des composants critiques à travers trois variantes très différentes. Cela aurait également aidé à répartir la richesse entre les différents grands entrepreneurs de la défense, une pratique qui est devenue de plus en plus une priorité du Pentagone. Bien sûr, étant donné que les aspects STOVL des F-35 et X-32 ont été intégrés au stade de la proposition, cela aurait nécessité de revenir en arrière jusqu'en 1993, pas seulement en 2001. Robert Farley, un contributeur fréquent de TNI, est l'auteur du Battleship Book. Il est maître de conférences à la Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce de l'Université du Kentucky. Son travail comprend la doctrine militaire, la sécurité nationale et les affaires maritimes. Il blogue sur Avocats, Armes à feu et Diffusion d'argent et d'informations et Le Diplomate. Cela est apparu pour la première fois en 2016. https://www.breakingnews.fr/international/lavion-qui-aurait-pu-remplacer-le-f-35-523306.html

All news