Back to news

April 24, 2018 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

Pentagon creates new position to help guide software acquisition, F-35 development

By:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department is creating a new position to help formulate its software strategy and ensure it keeps pace with commercial advancements — and the most important resposiblity will be overseeing the F-35 joint strike fighter's agile software strategy.

During a Friday roundtable with reporters, Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, announced that she has tapped Jeff Boleng to the newly created position of special assistant for software acquisition.

Boleng, currently the acting chief technology officer at Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, will start April 16 as a member of Lord's team.

“Jeff Boleng will spend over 90 percent of his time on F-35. He is going to be the individual who is working amongst all of the groups to enable us to bring the right talent onboard,” Lord said.

“We have a challenge, I think both within the JPO [F-35 joint program office] as well as Lockheed Martin, in terms of getting a critical mass of contemporary software skill sets to begin to move in the direction we want to.”

As the F-35 joint program office embarks on a new strategy called Continuous Capability Development and Delivery, or C2D2, which involves introducing agile software development, Lord wants to ensure that both the JPO and Lockheed have employees with the right training to execute the effort and that they can attract new professionals with additional software expertise.

“This is something that [Lockheed CEO] Marillyn Hewson and I have talked about,” she said. “Lockheed Martin has some excellent software capability throughout the corporation. My expectation is that they're going to leverage that on the F-35. And as we within the Department of Defense really increase our capability for software development focused on C2D2, our expectation is that Lockheed Martin will do the exact same thing.

“So they have the capability. I'm very energized about the leadership focus that I have seen in the last four to eight weeks, so I have great expectations that that will continue and that Lockheed Martin will keep pace or outpace DoD in terms of modernization for F-35 software development.”

Boleng, a former cyberspace operations officer and software engineer who served more than 20 years with the Air Force, last held the position of teaching computer science at the Air Force Academy before moving to the private sector.

At Carnegie Mellon, he is responsible for spearheading the institutes research and development portfolio, which includes software development, data analytics and cyber security activities in support of the Defense Department.

As the special assistant for software acquisition, he will help develop department-wide software development standards and policies and “advise department leadership on latest best practices in commercial software development.”

Boleng will also interface with Pentagon organizations charged with ramping up the department's software prowess such as Defense Digital Services, a small group of former private-sector tech professionals who led the department's “Hack the Pentagon” events and have conducted a few assessments of F-35 software.

That starts with a meeting today between Lord, Boleng and a Defense Innovation Board group centered on software acquisition, which has been embedded both with the joint program office and Lockheed Martin, Lord said.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/13/pentagon-creates-new-position-to-help-guide-software-acqusition-f-35-development/

On the same subject

  • Defense Department study calls for cutting 2 of the US Navy’s aircraft carriers

    April 22, 2020 | International, Naval

    Defense Department study calls for cutting 2 of the US Navy’s aircraft carriers

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON – An internal Office of the Secretary of Defense assessment calls for the Navy to cut two aircraft carriers from its fleet, freeze the large surface combatant fleet of destroyers and cruisers around current levels and add dozens of unmanned or lightly manned ships to the inventory, according to documents obtained by Defense News. The study calls for a fleet of nine carriers, down from the current fleet of 11, and for 65 unmanned or lightly manned surface vessels. The study calls for a surface force of between 80 and 90 large surface combatants, and an increase in the number of small surface combatants – between 55 and 70, which is substantially more than the Navy currently operates. The assessment is part of an ongoing DoD-wide review of Navy force structure and seem to echo what Defense Secretary Mark Esper has been saying for months: the Defense Department wants to begin de-emphasizing aircraft carriers as the centerpiece of the Navy's force projection and put more emphasis on unmanned technologies that can be more easily sacrificed in a conflict and can achieve their missions more affordably. A DoD spokesperson declined to comment on the force structure assessment. "We will not comment on a DoD product that is pre-decisional,” said Navy Capt. Brook DeWalt. The Navy is also working on its own force structure assessment that is slated to be closely aligned with the Marine Corps' stated desire to become more closely integrated with the Navy. Cutting two aircraft carriers would permanently change the way the Navy approaches presence around the globe and force the service to rethink its model for projecting power across the globe, said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with the Telemus Group. “The deployment models we set – and we're still keeping – were developed around 15 carriers so that would all fall apart,” Hendrix said, referring to standing carrier presence requirements in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. “This would be reintroducing reality. A move like this would signal a new pattern for the Navy's deployments that moves away from presence and moves towards surge and exercise as a model for carrier employment.” A surge model would remove standing requirements for carriers and would mean that the regional combatant commanders would get carriers when they are available or when they are needed in an emergency. With 9 carriers, the Navy would have between six and seven available at any given time with one in its mid-life refueling and overhaul and one or two in significant maintenance periods. The net result would be significantly fewer carrier deployments in each calendar year. The assessment reducing the overall number of carriers also suggests that the OSD study didn't revamp the Carrier Air Wing to make it more relevant, Hendrix said. Esper has taken a keen interest in Navy force structure, telling Defense News in March that he had directed the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), along with the Navy, to conduct a series of war games and exercises in the coming months in order to figure out the way forward toward a lighter Navy, but said any major decisions will be based around the completion of a new joint war plan for the whole department, which the secretary said should be finished this summer. “I think once we go through this process with the future fleet — that'll really be the new foundation, the guiding post,” Esper told Defense News. “It'll give us the general direction we need to go, and I think that'll be a big game changer in terms of future fleet, for structure, for the Navy and Marine Corps team.” When it comes to carriers, Esper said he saw a lot of value in keeping carriers in the force structure, and that it wasn't going to be an all-or-nothing decision. “This discussion often comes down to a binary: Is it zero or 12?” Esper said. “First of all, I don't know. I think carriers are very important. I think they demonstrate American power, American prestige. They get people's attention. They are a great deterrent. They give us great capability.” Revamped Surface Fleet The OSD assessment also calls for essentially freezing the size of the large surface combatant fleet. There are about 90 cruisers and destroyers in the fleet: the study recommended retaining at least 80 but keeping about as many as the Navy currently operates at the high end. The Navy's small surface combatant program is essentially the 20 littoral combat ships in commission today, with another 15 under contract, as well as the 20 next-generation frigates, which would get to the minimum number in the assessment of 55 small combatants, with the additional 15 presumably being more frigates. The big change comes in the small unmanned or lightly manned surface combatants. In his interview with Defense News, Esper said the Navy needed to focus integrating those technologies into the fleet. “What we have to tease out is, what does that future fleet look like?” Esper said. “I think one of the ways you get there quickly is moving toward lightly manned [ships], which over time can be unmanned. “We can go with lightly manned ships, get them out there. You can build them so they're optionally manned and then, depending on the scenario or the technology, at some point in time they can go unmanned. “To me that's where we need to push. We need to push much more aggressively. That would allow us to get our numbers up quickly, and I believe that we can get to 355, if not higher, by 2030.” The Navy is currently developing a family of unmanned surface vessels that are intended to increase the offensive punch for less money, while increasing the number of targets the Chinese military would have to locate in a fight. That's a push that earned the endorsement of the Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday in comments late last year. “I know that the future fleet has to include a mix of unmanned,” Gilday said. “We can't continue to wrap $2 billion ships around 96 missile tubes in the numbers we need to fight in a distributed way, against a potential adversary that is producing capability and platforms at a very high rate of speed. We have to change the way we are thinking.” Aaron Mehta contributed to this report from Washington. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/04/20/defense-department-study-calls-for-cutting-2-of-the-us-navys-aircraft-carriers/

  • Boeing Gets $3.9 Billion Contract for New Air Force One

    July 18, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Boeing Gets $3.9 Billion Contract for New Air Force One

    By Anthony Capaccio Capping off a contentious contracting tussle with President Donald Trump, Boeing Co. received a $3.9 billion contract to continue development, modification and testing of two new aircraft to serve as Air Force One, according to two people familiar with the decision. The planes, Boeing 747-8s, would be delivered by December 2024. That would be Trump's last full year in office if he wins a second term. Congressional committees were informed of the decision on Tuesday. Trump reached an informal deal in late February with Chicago-based Boeing for the fixed-price contract that a White House spokesman said at the time would save taxpayers $1.4 billion from an earlier projection for buying and outfitting two presidential jets. But public estimates suggest the savings would be far less -- perhaps a few hundred million dollars. Trump shook the defense industry -- and put all large U.S. companies with government contracts on notice -- when he began criticizing the Air Force One contract more than a month before he took office in January 2017. On Dec. 6, 2016 he wrote on Twitter that “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” That surprising statement was followed by talks with Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg. After a visit to Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in January, Muilenburg said, “We're going to get it done for less than that, and we're committed to working together to make sure that happens.” Announcement of the contract came the same day Trump said in an interview with CBS that the new aircraft will be painted “be red, white and blue, which I think is appropriate,'' instead of its traditional white, blue and light-blue color scheme. The Air Force said last year that it saved some money when the president reached a preliminary deal with Boeing for two 747 jumbo jets to serve as Air Force One, taking advantage of an unusual limited-time discount on planes once bound for Russia. Much of the costs for the presidential plane come from pricey and complex modifications required to turn Boeing's iconic hump-backed jets into the flying fortresses that ferry U.S. presidents around the world. The jets would be outfitted with dual auxiliary power units, rather than the one electrical power system standard for commercial jets, along with a complex communications system, work and rest quarters for the first family, elevators to ease boarding, self-defense capabilities and other features, according to Air Force budget documents. The Air Force decided in 2015 to award Boeing a sole-source deal to build the Air Force One replacements without competition while insisting that subcontractors be allowed to bid on its specialized equipment. The service determined then that Boeing's aircraft was the only one manufactured in the U.S. “that when fully missionized meets the necessary critically important capabilities” that the president needs. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/boeing-said-to-get-3-9-billion-contract-for-new-air-force-one

  • Londres lance une force ‘européenne’ de protection maritime dans le Golfe. Les Français répondent présent

    July 22, 2019 | International, Naval

    Londres lance une force ‘européenne’ de protection maritime dans le Golfe. Les Français répondent présent

    Une montée en puissance lente La présence va être renforcée peu à peu. Aux côtés du HMS Montrose (F-236), une frégate de type 23 déjà sur place, la Royal Navy a envoyé sur place le HMS Duncan (D-37), un destroyer de Type 45 destroyer), qui devrait sur zone dans quelques jours, d'ici « le 29 juillet ». Ce sera la « première étape dans ce processus de montée en puissance ». Objectif : protéger les navires battant pavillon britannique (tankers pétroliers, transporteurs de gaz liquéfié, cargos...) naviguant dans le détroit d'Ormuz. Jérémy Hunt a tenu à cependant à avertir que cet effort n'était pas militaire. « Nous faisons cela, non pas accroitre la tension, mais parce que nous estimons que la liberté de navigation est importante. Ce que nous recherchons est la désescalade. » Une force européenne, la France répondra présent « La coalition proposée sera placée sous le leadership européen » a précisé Jérémy Hunt. Plusieurs pays ont été contactés pour participer à cette force, dont le format n'est pas précisé exactement. La France et l'Allemagne notamment a précisé le ministre britannique, ayant indiqué avoir parlé avec ses homologues Jean-Yves Le Drian et Heiko Maas. Les Pays-Bas et la Norvège — deux pays avec une industrie pétrolière — auraient aussi été contactés selon nos informations. La France répondra présent. La ministre de la Défense française Florence Parly l'a assuré ce lundi après-midi après un entretien téléphonique avec son homologue britannique Penny Mordaunt. Il y a une « pleine solidarité » entre la France et le Royaume-Uni « alors qu'un pétrolier britannique est toujours retenu par l'Iran ». « La liberté de navigation dans le Golfe est un enjeu majeur de sécurité pour les Européens » a-t-elle indiqué. « Nous souhaitons travailler ensemble à la garantir. » Une force bien distincte de l'effort américain Cette force agira en coordination avec les autres forces, notamment américaines présentes dans la zone. « On ne peut pas exclure les Américains. Nous agirons en coordination avec eux ils ont des moyens de ravitaillement en mer ou d'information » qui sont utiles à l'opération. Mais cette force sera bien distincte. Le chef de la diplomatie britannique a tenu cependant à le préciser devant la Chambre des communes, il ne s'agit pas pour les Britanniques de s'associer aux efforts américains en cours visant à briser l'Iran. « Cela ne fait pas partie de l'effort maximum des Américains sur l'Iran, car nous sommes engagés dans l'accord sur le nucléaire iranien. » Des règles d'engagement élaborées Les règles d'engagement sont en cours d'élaboration, mais le ministre n'a pas tenu devant la chambre à en donner tous les détails. Les navires marchands devront aussi faire un effort pour accroitre leur sécurité. « On pourra pas assurer un risque zéro, mais on pourra le réduire. » Tous les navires battant pavillon britannique transitant par le détroit d'Ormuz devront ainsi communiquer la date de leur passage pour « nous permettre d'offrir la meilleure protection possible ». D'autres mesures pourraient aussi être nécessaires. Un élément doublement stratégique Ce lancement est intéressant. On avait connu des Britanniques beaucoup plus atlantiques et moins européennes. Aussi quand Jérémy Hunt, un ministre tory bon teint, annonce une « European-led maritime force », menée en « coalition » (1) on se pince presque pour se dire qu'on ne rêve pas. Même le plus audacieux Européen n'aurait jamais imaginé une situation où Londres réclame une opération ‘européenne'. C'est assez ironique qu'il fallait le Brexit (et Donald Trump) pour que les Britanniques se souviennent qu'avoir une force européenne peut avoir autant d'intérêt qu'une force euro-atlantique. Mais c'est une affaire de haute politique. Il s'agit pour les Britanniques de bien se distinguer des efforts américains en cours contre l'Iran. Le chef du Foreign Office l'a répété à plusieurs reprises, interrogé par les députés de la Chambre des communes : cette force sera bien distincte de l'effort américain. Un geste de puissance douce Et placer cette force sous commandement de l'OTAN serait un signe immédiat d'hostilité. Le placer sous commandement européen est un geste de ‘puissance douce'. L'Europe peut afficher qu'elle ne vise que la protection des navires, comme elle l'a fait dans l'Océan indien, contre les pirates somaliens, de concert d'ailleurs avec des navires iraniens. Et parmi les députés britanniques, cette force européenne de lutte contre la piraterie (commandée par les Britanniques depuis Northwood) est un « véritable succès ». Les députés britanniques l'ont rappelé lors du débat à la chambre. Une campagne en cours N'oublions pas cependant un élément principal : Jérémy Hunt est en campagne actuellement pour briguer le poste de chef du parti conservateur et dans le même temps celui de Premier ministre. Il a intérêt à la fois à durcir le ton, mais aussi à affirmer sa différence avec Boris Johnson sur un point essentiel : la coopération avec l'Europe. En défendant la mise en place d'une force européenne dans le détroit d'Ormuz, il affirme sa détermination. En la plaçant sous l'emblème de l'Europe, il affiche la nécessité d'avoir une approche plus mesurée qu'un hard deal. Car, dès aujourd'hui, les Britanniques peuvent et auront besoin des Européens. Un besoin d'Europe Soyons clairs. Même dynamique, la flotte britannique ne suffira pas à assurer la protection des navires soit battant pavillon britannique, soit propriété ou armé par une compagnie britannique. Il faut une coalition d'Européens. Au passage, cela permet à la marine britannique de retrouver un rôle et une mission de premier plan, depuis qu'elle ne participe plus ni à la force anti-piraterie de l'UE déployée dans l'Océan indien, ni dans les opérations en Méditerranée. Le QG d'opération de Northwood va pouvoir ainsi retrouver une vocation maritime qu'il avait perdue avec le départ de l'opération EUNAVFOR Atalanta pour un QG espagnol (pour cause de Brexit). (Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/07/22/londres-lance-une-force-europeenne-de-protection-maritime-dans-le-golfe-les-francais-repondent-present/

All news