November 20, 2020 | International, C4ISR
Deux pépites technologiques françaises, deux parcours incroyables. Earthcube et Kalray vont pouvoir poursuivre leur aventure gr'ce à deux opérations de levée de fonds réussies.
Ce sont deux pépites françaises extrêmement prometteuses, qui pourraient devenir un jour des licornes françaises. Earthcube, qui change de nom en devenant Preligens, et Kalray ont réussi leur levée de fonds. La première, spécialisée dans l'imagerie spatiale au moyen de techniques d'intelligence artificielle notamment, a réussi à lever 20 millions d'euros ; la seconde, pionnier des processeurs dédiés aux nouveaux systèmes intelligents, a annoncé jeudi dans un communiqué le succès d'une augmentation de capital d'un montant de 5,2 millions d'euros.
Dénominateur commun pour ces deux start-up, la présence du ministère des Armées dans leur tour de table, qui surveille ces deux pépites technologique comme le lait sur le feu pour des raisons de souveraineté et d'autonomie stratégique. C'est le fonds Definvest, doté de 100 millions d'euros et opéré par Bpifrance, qui est techniquement dans le capital de Preligens et Kalray. Depuis sa création, huit entreprises ont bénéficié...
September 30, 2024 | International, Aerospace
The Kingdom of Denmark has contracted with Rheinmetall Air Defence to supply sixteen Skyranger 30 air defence turrets and additional vehicle equipment for an 8x8 wheeled platform for use by...
September 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
Mark Gunzinger Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new U.S. Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict U.S. operations in the past. Hyten also noted the concept will seamlessly integrate “fires from all domains, including space and cyber,” to overwhelm an enemy. While these aspirations are laudable, there are indications the concept could fall short of what is needed to inform cross-service trade-offs that must be made in an era of flat or declining defense budgets. The DoD creates operating concepts to define preferred approaches to perform specific missions or execute a campaign to defeat an enemy. They also provide a foundation for the services to assess new technologies, force alternatives and resource priorities. Said another way, they are the tissue that connects top-level National Defense Strategy guidance to actual plans and programs. While a joint all-domain war-fighting concept is urgently needed, Hyten has not made it clear the one in development will lead to trade-offs that maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. For instance, Hyten has said it will call for every service to conduct long-range strikes: “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep. ... Everybody.” This could mean the concept will support a degree of redundancy across the services that has never existed. Setting aside tough trade-offs that eliminate excessively redundant programs will waste defense dollars and reduce capabilities available to U.S. commanders. More specifically, the concept might endorse the Army's plan to buy 1,000-mile-plus, surface-to-surface missiles that cost millions of dollars each. Doing so would ignore analyses that have determined using large numbers of these weapons would be far more expensive than employing bombers that can strike any target on the planet for a fraction of the cost, then regenerate and fly more sorties. Furthermore, the Army's long-range missile investments could be at the expense of its ability to defend U.S. theater air bases against missile attacks. Not only has air base missile defense long been an Army mission — it has long neglected and underfunded the mission. Chinese or Russian strikes against under-defended air bases could cripple the United States' primary combat sortie-generation operations. If the concept does not consider these kinds of trade-offs, it could be due to the approach used to create it. The Joint Staff's doctrine development process is notorious for seeking consensus instead of making cross-service trade-offs necessary to maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. Assuring bureaucratic service equities versus optimizing combat lethality can lead to operating concepts that fail to create clear priorities or — worse yet — declare everything a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. Moreover, each service was asked to develop a subordinate concept that will be integrated into the whole. This piece-part approach could result in the services ladening their subordinate concepts with their own equities instead of working together to develop the most effective, decisive options. In short, a bottom-up, consensus-driven concept for all-domain warfare would not be an effective baseline to compare the DoD's force structure and capability alternatives. Three things could help to avoid this mistake. First, the secretary of defense should approve a new all-domain war-fighting concept, and the secretary's staff should be deeply involved in its development. Some say the latter is inappropriate, believing the military, not DoD civilians, should create war-fighting concepts. However, it is entirely appropriate for the secretary's staff to be part of the concept's creation if its purpose is to shape the DoD's plans and programs. Second, DoD leaders should rigorously examine the services' existing roles and missions during the concept's development, and make changes to reduce excessively redundant responsibilities, forces and capabilities. This may need to be driven by congressional language. Finally, the DoD should jettison the word “joint” as part of the concept's title. This would stress the concept is focused on integrating operations across all domains, not on the services that provide forces to combatant commanders. The point is not for all to participate, but instead for all options to be considered, and those that provide best combat value be prioritized. Otherwise, it becomes a case analogous to all the kids chasing a soccer ball. The 2018 National Defense Strategy was the beginning of the effort to shift the DoD toward preparing for peer conflict. Given that dollars and time are short, the DoD must now get a concept for all-domain warfare right. Like the National Defense Strategy, the concept must be top-down driven, not a bottom-up, consensus-driven product that fails to make trade-offs across the services and provides a rationale that supports what each service desires to buy. Rather, its ultimate objective should be to seek best-value capabilities and expand theater commander options to defeat peer adversaries. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/22/a-consensus-driven-joint-concept-for-all-domain-warfare-will-fall-short/
May 22, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
DARPA's Defense Sciences Office (DSO) will host Discover DSO Day (D3) on June 18, 2019, to facilitate discussion of technical research thrusts outlined in a new office-wide Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) solicitation expected in mid-June. Additionally, D3 will familiarize participants with DSO's mission and streamlined business practices designed to simplify the proposal process and accelerate the timeline from idea approval to research start date. The event will take place in the DARPA Conference Center, Arlington, Virginia, from 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT, and the audio also will be webcast. Registration is required to attend in person or via webcast. One of six technical offices at DARPA, DSO identifies and pursues high-risk, high-payoff research initiatives across a broad spectrum of science and engineering disciplines and transforms them into game-changing technologies for U.S. national security. “D3 is an opportunity for the broader science and technology community to engage with DSO as we highlight key technical areas we're focusing on in the coming year,” said Valerie Browning, director of DSO. “We encourage potential proposers from small companies, universities, research centers and large companies to join us. We especially encourage those who've never done business with DARPA to come and learn about DSO and let us hear your novel ideas in the areas we're interested in.” Panels of DSO program managers will discuss concepts and ideas they are pursuing in each of the four technical areas listed below. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions following each panel presentation: Frontiers in Math, Computation & Design: The increasingly complex, technologically sophisticated, fast-paced and dynamic military operational environment imposes fundamental challenges in how we design and plan for future military needs. The DoD implications of these trends drive a need for new math, computation, and design tools that enable trusted decision making at increased speed and with known confidence levels. Topics of interest under this domain include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) mathematical, computational, and design frameworks and tools that provide robust solutions to challenging DoD problems such as planning, optimization, and platform design; (2) fundamental scientific underpinnings and limits of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI); and (3) alternative computing models, architectures, and substrates for faster, more robust decision making. Limits of Sensing & Sensors: Sensing and measurement of signals ranging from “DC to daylight” are ubiquitous to military systems and missions. Surveillance, navigation, warfighter health monitoring, and target ID/tracking are just a few examples of missions and/or applications that rely on various sensing modalities. Topics of interest under this domain include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) new sensing modalities, (2) fundamental sensing limits, (3) engineered materials that enable novel optics and imaging capabilities, (4) fundamental and practical limits of quantum enabled sensing and metrology, and (5) practical and deployable sensing and sensor designs. Complex Social Systems: Understanding social behavior and the dynamics of complex social networks is critically important for many military operations including stability, deterrence, compellence, counter-terrorism, shaping the environment, training, and mission planning. Additionally, increasingly robust machine capabilities in the form of automation, platforms, and artificial intelligence (AI) will fundamentally change how human teams frame problems, plan, and operate at tempo and manage complexity. Topics of interest under this domain include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) accurate and scientifically validated models of the social dynamics underlying different kinds of conflict; (2) capabilities to improve understanding of causality in complex social systems; (3) artificial intelligence and other tools that enable improved human-machine symbiotic decision-making; and (4) new concepts in war-gaming and simulations to identify and understand options for deterrence and stability operations. Anticipating Surprise: Ultimately, the goal of DSO R&D investments is to ensure that U.S. warfighters have access to the most advanced technologies. Research funded under this thrust area supports scientific and technological discovery that leads to “leap ahead” capabilities for enhanced military readiness across multiple operational domains. Example topics of interest under this domain include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) novel functional and structural materials and manufacturing processes; (2) materials for harsh environments; (3) defense against Weapons of Mass Destruction/Weapons of Mass Terror (WMD/WMT) threats; (4) energetic materials; (5) new propulsion concepts; and (6) novel approaches to energy storage and power generation. For D3 agenda and registration instructions, please visit: https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-SN-19-52/listing.html https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-05-20a