Rearming US Navy ships at sea is no longer an option, but a necessity

On the same subject

• 

  April 23, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  FCC and Ligado are undermining GPS – and with it, our economy and national security

  Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Jack Reed, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Mac Thornberry Right now, the coronavirus is rightly our country's most immediate concern. But the Federal Communications Commission has used the crisis, under the cover of darkness, to approve a long-stalled application by Ligado Networks — a proposal that threatens to undermine our global positioning system (GPS) capabilities, and with it, our national security. The FCC granted Ligado (formerly known as LightSquared) permission to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS frequencies for a terrestrial cellular network — framing this proposal as essential to “winning the race to 5G.” But what Ligado has done is conflate two different and important spectrum issues: the sharing of mid-band 5G spectrum by the Department of Defense and commercial industry, and harmful interference of Ligado's signal with the low-band GPS signals used in nearly every aspect of daily life. The result: some members of Congress, members of the administration, and the public are now confused about the real and immediate impacts of Ligado's proposal. So, we wanted to clarify things: domestic 5G development is critical to our economic competiveness against China and for our national security. The Pentagon is committed working with government and industry to share mid-band spectrum where and when it makes sense to ensure rapid roll-out of 5G. [Editor's note: C4ISRNET first broke the news that the FCC would move forward with Ligado's request on April 10.] The problem here is that Ligado's planned usage is not in the prime mid-band spectrum being considered for 5G — and it will have a significant risk of interference with GPS reception, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The signals interference Ligado's plan would create could cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars and require the replacement of current GPS equipment just as we are trying to get our economy back on its feet quickly — and the FCC has just allowed this to happen. Think of all the ways Americans use GPS each and every day. GPS satellites provide free precise timing and navigation that powers thousands of functions: making financial transactions at our banks, keeping the lights on in our homes, traveling around the country — the list goes on and on. Studies show GPS satellites contribute at least $1 billion to our economy every single day. GPS also forms the backbone of countless military operations and applications — to get supplies to our war fighters on the battlefield, guide unmanned aircraft and vehicles, target its precision weapons, and much more. It would be practically impossible to identify and repair or replace all of the potentially adversely affected receivers. It would “needlessly imperil [Department of Defense] GPS-dependent national security capabilities,” per Secretary Esper, putting the war fighter, U.S. Space Force, military readiness, and even the defense of our homeland at risk. American families and businesses would lose coverage or be forced to use systems from our strategic competitors, China and Russia, jeopardizing our global leadership in precision timing. We're not the only ones with serious concerns. Nine federal departments and agencies have completed extensive engineering tests and analyses on Ligado's proposal; and the results are clear: Ligado's plan would interfere with millions of GPS receivers across the nation. The Departments of Defense, Commerce, Interior, Justice, Homeland Security, Energy, and Transportation — as well as NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration — all strongly object to Ligado's plan. What kind of precedent is the FCC setting by disregarding near unanimous opposition of federal agencies to this proposal? It's not just the government, either — industry leaders representing GPS, satellite communications services, automotive companies, commercial aviation, and weather data have also voiced concerns over Ligado's proposal. We would expect that the FCC listen not just to Ligado's privately funded research, but also broad-based, in-depth research from experts in national security and other fields. This makes it all the more confusing — why is the FCC ignoring all the evidence, especially now, at the height of a global crisis? The Ligado application highlights the need to use a technical, data-driven approach to balance the use of the spectrum between war fighter requirements and commercial needs, rather than strong-arming a proposal through the process like the FCC just did. We can expect this issue to be an ongoing national security challenge. If we want to strike a responsible balance moving forward, the U.S. government must modernize the infrastructure needed to manage and share spectrum efficiently, promote policy and technology innovation, and improve the ability of military systems to operate alongside commercial systems. Considering the risks, it's clear the FCC commissioners made the wrong decision regarding Ligado's plan, which will set a disastrous precedent while impeding ongoing work on spectrum sharing. The vulnerabilities to our national and economic security are not worth the risk, particularly for a band of spectrum that isn't necessary to secure a robust 5G network. We encourage the FCC to withdraw its approval of Ligado's application and take this opportunity to work with the NTIA and other federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Transportation, to find a solution that will both support commercial broadband expansion and protect national security assets. Moreover, we expect the FCC to resolve Department of Defense concerns before moving forward, as required by law. If they do not, and unless President Trump intervenes to stop this from moving forward, it will be up to Congress to clean up this mess. Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. https://www.c4isrnet.com/breaking-news/2020/04/22/fcc-and-ligado-are-undermining-gps-and-with-it-our-economy-and-national-security/

• 

  August 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Awash in technology hook-ups, Team Tempest longs for steady partners

  By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — What few headlines were generated by the recent virtual Farnborough International Air Show centered on Britain's next-generation Tempest fighter and the efforts to build a business case for the program. The real Farnborough air show may have fallen victim to COVID-19, but with the Tempest team scheduled to deliver an outline business case for the next stage of the program to the government later this year the event provided a platform stress the importance of the project to jobs, the technology base and sustainment of operational sovereignty here. Britain launched the effort to look at developing the technologies required to build a sixth-generation combat jet two years ago under the name of Team Tempest, with BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK and Rolls-Royce partnering with the Ministry of Defence in the effort. Since then Sweden and Italy have also been recruited to study potential involvement in future combat air systems development and the Tempest program itself. Neither nation has committed itself yet, though, and a drive also continues to find other potential partners. Opening the virtual show, British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace flagged the country's interest in securing the signatures of other nations in development of a future combat aircraft. “The U.K. is keen to see more international partners join us. ... There is room for a broad range of other partnerships,” Wallace said. Leonardo CEO Alessandro Profumo said in a show webcast a number of countries had shown an interest in the program. Time remains for other partners to join Tempest. You have seen other nations express an interest and we are extremely positive for the future,” Profumo said. Japan, India and Saudi Arabia are among countries that have previously been mentioned as potential partners. It is also too soon to rule out the possibility of a realignment of some description with the rival Franco-German-Spanish future combat air program, said Doug Barrie, the senior air analyst at the International Institute of Strategic Studies think tank in London. “I think there's still a considerable period to go where alignments could change – with the possibility members could join or leave,” he said. Howard Wheeldon, of consultants Wheeldon Strategic Advisory, sees no chance of the two programs merging but reckons national line-ups could change. “I would rule out any thought of a merger between the two European projects, although I would never rule out the possibility of Germany jumping ship,” he said. With or without additional partners, always assuming Swedish and Italian Governments sign up for some sort of deal, Wheeldon reckons the British will stick with Tempest. “While the ideal situation would be an increase in the number of Team Tempest partner nations, such is the importance now being placed on future combat air systems and Team Tempest by the government I take the view that even if no other partners arrive the U.K. will not walk away from Tempest,” he said. For the moment, though, attention is focused on Team Tempest and the progress being made with its current would-be partners to study a potential tie-up around development of future combat air systems for the British and Italian operated Typhoon and Saab Gripen E combat jets and, ultimately, the building of the sixth-generation Tempest to be ready sometime between 2035 and 2040. The British have over 60 combat air technology demonstrations underway co-funded by the government and industry. Talks between the industrial partners of Britain, Italy and Sweden,which had previously been on a bilateral basis, have now been ratcheted up to trilateral discussions, strengthening potential research and development collaborations. “We've made good progress with Saab and Leonardo in identifying shared goals and expertise and through this new framework, we can build on this collaboration to unlock the huge potential across our three nations,” said BAE CEO Charles Woodburn. The three national industries comprise BAE, Leonardo UK, Rolls Royce and MBDA UK from Britain; Leonardo, Elettronica, Avio Aero and MBDA Italia from Italy; and Sweden's Saab and GKN Aerospace Sweden. Additionally, Saab also used the virtual show to announce it was investing £50 million in the creation of a future combat air system hub and other activities in the U.K. The location and timing of the investment have not yet been declared by Saab but there is talk here that the center could be close to BAE's combat jet operations in northwest England. Saab CEO Micael Johansson said the move signaled the company's commitment to combat air development and the growth of its interests in the U.K. Tempest itself didn't rate a mention in the Saab statement, with the company only referring to future combat air system development work. “Saab took the decision to create a new future combat air system centre so that we can further develop the close working relationship with the other future combat air system industrial partners and the U.K. MoD. This emphasizes the importance of both future combat air systems and the U.K. to Saab's future,” said Johansson. The Tempest industrial effort has also been further broadened with the signing up of a clutch of systems suppliers. Bombardier in Northern Ireland, GKN, Martin Baker and Qinetiq, alongside the U.K. arms of Collins Aerospace, GE Aviation and Thales have signed up to collaborate on the demonstration program. So far only Collins Aerospace Systems has declared its hand on the nature of the work they will be undertaking. The company said it had been awarded a contract by BAE to provide advanced actuation capabilities, including for use on Tempest. Separately, GKN Aerospace in Sweden revealed July 22 it is participating in a future fighter engine feasibility study along with Rolls-Royce and Avio Aero of Italy. Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group, said progress signing up the systems suppliers was a significant move. “My big take away from virtual Farnborough is that Tempest increasingly looks like a real program, with a very heavy level of involvement from subcontractors, who of course need to start developing systems,” said Aboulafia. Despite the fact COVID-19 has pretty much sucked the life out of the U.K.'s finances for now, the feeling among analysts is that Tempest will survive a potentially perfect storm of severe defense budget restrictions and an integrated defense, security and foreign policy review ordered by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and due to report next year. In an opinion piece for the Sunday Telegraph July 26 Defense Secretary Wallace said the Government would be “pivoting away” from traditional equipment capabilities with the armed forces reshaped to operate “much more in the newest domains of space, cyber and sub-sea.” But he also made the point that a sharper technological edge and a relentless focus on innovation was required to outmaneuver adversaries. The policy would unlock opportunities in jobs, skills and in exports, he said. Wheeldon said that sort of language was right out of the Tempest playbook. “The government has made it abundantly clear that it views development of new technologies as being the absolute priority for the U.K. Tempest is not only a test case of that commitment but is also its flagship. Bottom line is my belief that the government is even more behind the program than it was two years ago.,” said Wheeldon. “My sense is that despite the expectation of capability, manning and base cuts emerging from the integrated review process the government will continue to back major development projects such as Team Tempest,” he said. IISS's Barrie reckons that without the need yet for massive spending on the program Tempest and future combat air developments could ride out the COVID-19 storm, and maybe even benefit. “So far the program looks secure-ish, even with the pending outcome of the Integrated Review, given that the near-term levels of investment are manageable. There is also the argument that with the commercial aerospace sector being battered by the pandemic, any support the government could provide to the wider sector would be welcome – the future combat air system provides such a vehicle,” he said. Aboulafia reckons that while there may be a risk of delay it's unlikely the economic impact of COVID-19 on Tempest will be significant. “These programs are certainly at risk of being delayed, but the bulk of the heavy spending bill is due well after the pandemic recovery period, so it's unlikely that this crisis will force any tough decisions. And the whole point of Tempest of course is to avoid getting involved with a program led by France,” he said. Paul Everitt, the CEO of the ADS industry lobby organization, said the future combat air effort fitted the government's plans to boost the manufacturing economy to a tee. “The Tempest program is the government's prosperity agenda in action,” said Everitt. One of the key issues yet to be announced by the British is whether they see Tempest as piloted or optionally piloted. Wallace seemed to signal his preference for an optionally piloted machine when he told virtual-Farnborough viewers that while ninety percent of combat jets are crewed today, he expects a “major reversal of these proportions by 2040.” In a report on Britain's combat air choices released late July, Royal United Services Institute analyst Justin Bronk said the decision was of huge importance for Tempest. “The decision of whether or not to develop a piloted or optionally piloted solution as part of Tempest will have critical implications for the nature, cost implications and minimum viable scale of the program,” he said. “While it remains an operating assumption for many, the outcome of the Team Tempest next-generation combat air development program is not necessarily going to involve a new (optionally) piloted fast jet fleet to directly replace Typhoon. If that ambition is the choice made, it will have major budget implications for an already stretched combat air equipment program between 2024 and 2040,” said the analyst. Bronk says in the report that a decision to go for a piloted Tempest only could have ramifications elsewhere in Britain's combat jet force. “Barring a massive increase in overall defense spending, significant F-35 purchases beyond 2024 remain financially incompatible with a full-scale piloted vehicle-centric Tempest program to replace Typhoon, even if some additional combat air funding can be found,” Bronk warned. The British have pledged to buy 48 F-34Bs by 2024 out of a total commitment for 138 aircraft. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-air-power/2020/08/06/awash-in-technology-hook-ups-team-tempest-longs-for-steady-partners/

• 

  March 9, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Contracts for March 8, 2021

  Today