December 19, 2023 | International, Land, Security
Marie-France Lalonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, will announce a major investment in the Canadian Army on behalf of the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence.
March 26, 2019 | International, Aerospace
Le systémier Saab cherche à placer ses moyens de guerre électronique en France, notamment auprès d'Airbus Helicopters et de Dassault aviation. [...] https://www.lalettrea.fr/entreprises_defense-et-aeronautique/2019/03/20/le-marche-francais-de-la-defense-aiguise-l-appetit-du-suedois-saab,108349684-brl
May 21, 2020 | International, Naval
By: Bryan Clark and Timothy A. Walton The U.S. Navy's award this month of the contract for its new class of frigates starts the very necessary process of rebalancing the U.S. surface fleet, but the competition also highlighted the U.S. shipbuilding-industrial base's increasing fragility. If they lost, two of the four shipyards bidding on the frigate were at risk of either going out of business or joining the underemployed ranks of U.S. commercial shipbuilders. Due to specialization, only one or two yards construct each class of Navy combat ship with workforces, equipment, and infrastructure that would be expensive and difficult to adapt. A decision on any single ship class, as with the frigate, can shut down a shipyard and send its workers to the unemployment line. Specialization is also a problem when orders increase. The Navy's two submarine shipyards, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News division, shrank the time needed to build subs by 20 percent during the past decade while increasing production to two per year. The rising sophistication of Virginia-class submarines has now reversed this trend, however, and submarine builders' challenges are only increasing. They recently started a new contract to build up to 10 of the larger Block V Virginia submarines and are in negotiation with the Navy on a block-buy contract for the first two Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. Supplier challenges abound U.S. shipbuilders may be fragile, but their suppliers are on life support. After decades of being whipsawed by changes to shipbuilding plans and budget uncertainty, a shrinking number of suppliers are able and willing to stay in business. The Navy's recent initiatives to improve supplier production capacity and resilience don't go far enough to address its rising dependence on sole-source suppliers, which now provide more than 75 percent of submarine parts. For example, when problems with Columbia missile tubes led the Navy to seek new suppliers, it replaced the existing, sole source — BWXT — with another — General Dynamics — that will assemble tubes at the same facilities that are constructing parts for the Virginia and Columbia submarines. Last year, the Trump administration used the Defense Production Act to establish new suppliers for military missile fuel. The Navy should build on this effort to identify sole-source items for which an additional supplier is appropriate. In selecting additional suppliers, the Navy should prioritize attributes other than cost. Sole-source items by definition are important enough to justify seeking out or creating a single supplier rather than adapting the ship's design to use an existing item. Therefore, the Navy should emphasize the provider's track record in conducting similar or other challenging engineering; its ability to adjust to what will likely be variable demand and changing specifications; and the likelihood of quality production that avoids rework. Planning for resiliency The Department of Defense could help address the shipbuilding-industrial base's fragility with its current study of the number and mix of ships needed in the future fleet. Although the primary goal of this analysis should be determining the most effective fleet possible within likely budget constraints, it must also ensure the industrial base can build and sustain the future Navy. Industrial base considerations are not new to Navy force structure planning. During the last decade, the Navy or Congress added amphibious ships, submarines, destroyers and auxiliary vessels to maintain hot production lines or keep a shipyard afloat until the next order. Each of the Navy's new combatant ships are expected to cost more than $1 billion to build, constraining the Navy's ability to spread ship construction to other qualified shipyards to fill production gaps or extend classes to keep a shipyard in operation. The Navy could better support shipbuilders by rebalancing its fleet architecture to increase the number of smaller vessels such as corvettes or tank landing ships, and reduce the number of larger destroyers and amphibious warships. Smaller, less-expensive ships could be built in larger numbers per year, providing more flexibility in shipbuilding plans to stabilize the workload for shipbuilders and providing more scalability to align shipbuilding expenditures with changing budgets. Smaller ships could also be built at a wider range of shipyards, including those that only build commercial vessels and noncombatant government ships like Coast Guard cutters and oceanographic research vessels. These “dual-use” shipbuilders suffer today from a lack of coordination between commercial and government shipbuilding, which creates a feast-or-famine cycle of orders. The Navy and nation depend on a healthy shipbuilding-industrial base. To foster the industrial base in the face of natural and man-made challenges, the Navy should change its fleet design and shipbuilding plans, while investing to establish and qualify new suppliers. Without deliberate action, the U.S. shipbuilding industry will become increasingly fragile, limiting the Navy's ability to build the ships it needs and respond when today's competitions turn to conflict. Bryan Clark is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, where Timothy A. Walton is a fellow. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/20/shipbuilding-suppliers-need-more-than-market-forces-to-stay-afloat/
April 24, 2018 | International, Land, C4ISR
By: Mark Pomerleau The Army is upgrading how it tracks friendly forces to increase readiness. During the fiscal 2019 budget roll out in February, Army officials at the Pentagon indicated that the service would be accelerating its Joint Battle Command-Platform, which provides friendly forces awareness information known as blue force tracking, as well as encrypted data and faster satellite network connectivity. The change is intended to solve mounted mission command problems across all formations. The new budget request shows the service is serious about the issue. The Army asked for $431 million for the program in FY2019. That's up from a total of $283 million during the FY2018 budget. Moreover, the Army plans to procure 26,355 systems as opposed to 16,552 from the FY2018 budget. However, officials in the program office were careful to note this was not a “plus-up, so to speak,” but an effort to accelerate the fielding of the tracking systems. C4ISRNET's Mark Pomerleau recently spoke about the program's modernization efforts with Col. Troy Crosby, project manager for Mission Command, alongside Lt. Col. Shane Sims, product manager for JBC-P, assigned to Project Mission Command. C4ISRNET: How should we interpret the FY2019 budget request for this program? COL. TROY CROSBY: It's important to understand that there wasn't necessarily a plus-up. Really what happened is we shifted already approved authorizations to the left. We're just expediting sooner. The Army asked us what we could do to modernize faster ... essentially, we went back to them and said give us the funding and the resources to move a lot of those units to the left because every year the G-3/5/7 comes out with this priority list and we weren't able to get down to that priority list because of funding. That's really what you're seeing with that movement of money from the out years closer in to the left. C4ISRNET: What led to the decision to baseline the program across formations? CROSBY: The Army's looking to standardize their baselines not only on the platforms like JBC-P, but also a similar effort in the command post with software baseline reduction. Moving to the standard baseline on the platform-side helps with training, readiness and the physical constraints as we can depreciate the older versions of FBCB2/BFT [Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below/Blue Force Tracking] out of sustainment. C4ISRNET: How does standardization help the Army? CROSBY: Any time you're greatly standardized in a organization the size of the Army, you're going to get easier interoperability down at the tactical level. If Lt. Col. Sims is Sgt. Sims and he is in a unit at Fort Stewart and we were trained on the current systems in the force and then he gets [a permanent change of station] out to Fort Riley, he already has a base of knowledge when he hits the ground on what those systems are because they're the same across the force. So, the training burden for his new units greatly reduced. I think it also helps in readiness as units and soldiers move around the battlespace. The other reason the Army really wants to standardize on JBC-P is, like with all systems in the tactical network, we're always looking to improve cyber posture, and there were multiple improvements in our cyber posturing that the department felt were relevant to try to accelerate so we could get that capability to the entire force as quickly as possible. C4ISRNET: In terms of cyber, what are some modernization efforts you're undertaking to help this platform perform in the more dynamic environments? CROSBY: I think the best way that we can characterize it is looking to ... achieve a cyber posture that allows us to operate both in a counter-insurgency/counterterrorism role and a near-peer adversary role. We're looking to answer both sides of that coin. Yes, current fight, but we're also looking to make sure we're cyber postured for a near-peer. LT. COL. SHANE SIMS: You can probably draw some conclusions from what you know on the commercial side. Imagine having a computer that's over 20 years old — that's where some of our platforms are right now when you're talking about the FBCB2 that was fielded almost two decades ago. C4ISRNET: In terms of your FY19 funding, could it be characterized as investing in standards to help increase readiness and lethality? CROSBY: Very much so. The plus-up kind of touched a couple of areas. On the research and development side, the plus-up helps us in looking at ways to modernize and bring new capability for the blue force tracking network side. We're really looking to expedite that fielding for better cyber posture. C4ISRNET: It sounds like standardization is very important from an Army readiness and lethality perspective. SIMS: When talking JBC-P, there are really three components: the software, the hardware and then the network. Really, what we're doing on a couple fronts [is] we're expediting the fielding to get the hardware out there but that's going to set the conditions for what we're doing in the command post with the infrastructure. That same infrastructure is going to reside on our hardware that's in the platform. The commanders are in environments where they experience something completely different in the command post than you experience on the platforms. You hear repeatedly from the commanders, “Can I have the same type of user experience?” Data's really what we're addressing with the modernization of the command post and the mounted computing environment. That user experience is going to be one and the same for the commander when he or she is in the command post and then when they get in the vehicle. That is really what we're doing with modernization for JBC-P. C4ISRNET: The National Defense Strategy has stressed prioritization on great power competition. How does JBC-P modernization and standardization fit into that strategy? CROSBY: The first one is looking to modernize JBC-P mission command on the move at the platform level. How we continue to modernize and field as fast as we can so that we can maintain both that counter-insurgency/counterterrorism fight and near-peer adversaries is one piece of this. https://www.c4isrnet.com/thought-leadership/2018/04/13/how-the-army-plans-to-improve-its-friendly-force-tracking/