Back to news

December 2, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

SASC chairman: We must build the national security innovation base our defense strategy requires

By: Sen. Jim Inhofe

Since World War II, the American people have believed our military has had the best of everything, but the technological superiority that kept us 20 years ahead of our competitors has rapidly diminished. In some cases, we're already behind. By 2030, unless we pursue “urgent change at significant scale,” as former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis put it, it's likely the U.S. will face an enemy with superior weapons, superior equipment and superior capabilities.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our strategic competition with China. China used to just steal our technology. Now, through heavy investment, they are improving it. The result? China is outpacing the U.S. in key areas like hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies — not to mention conventional capabilities.

China isn't the only one. Technological development is accelerating across the globe, expanding to more actors and changing the very nature of war.

We can't afford to let our advantage erode further. It is up to the Department of Defense and Congress to make sure that the defense-industrial base becomes, as the National Defense Strategy demands, an “unmatched 21st century National Security Innovation Base.” If we want to “sustain security and solvency,” we need to consider wholesale change to industry culture and its interface with the Department of Defense, shed outdated management processes, and reimagine a resilient supply chain that mitigates 21st century risks.

This essay is part of the Defense News 2020 Outlook project. Click here for more.

This begins with software, which is foundational to military capability. The DoD and its traditional hardware-dominant industry partners have been behind on software in almost every way — talent, tools, development and delivery processes. Software innovation has failed in countless DoD programs, including the Ford-class carrier, the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System and the GPS next-generation operational control system. Instead of taking the Pentagon for granted as an endless source of cash flow, partners must refocus their attention on delivering secure capability that actually works.

Next, the Department of Defense needs to continue to expand capacity — prioritizing speed of delivery and adapting its systems to maximize value and output. For too long we have been slow to expand our stockpiles of fifth-generation weapons required to fight peer adversaries. The second production line for JASSM-ER cruise missiles is a good start toward building the capacity needed to retain advantages that will make any enemy think twice before attacking. We must do the same for other fifth-generation weapons, including air-to-air missiles.

Shipbuilding, including aircraft carriers, surface ships, submarines and our logistics fleet, is another area where our capacity is severely limited. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, which recently surpassed ours in size, is on track to reach 400 ships in 2025 and is nearly self-sufficient for all components.

Size of the fleet isn't a sole consideration. We've focused on ensuring the capability of our fleet remains unmatched and bolstering suppliers of critical components, but we must also improve the construction performance of lead ships in new classes to maintain and build upon our capability advantage. The last thing we want is a fair fight. Innovation is best done at the subsystem level through a rigorous engineering-based process centered on building knowledge through full-scale prototypes, which can then inform ship design. We are eager to work with the Navy to identify and fund more of these prototypes, which will serve as the building blocks of the future fleet.

We also must accelerate innovation. Recent defense authorization legislation encourages the DoD to streamline acquisition, take a business-minded approach to contracting, and tap into nontraditional suppliers and public-private partnerships. This must continue. Dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one. The DoD has looked to Silicon Valley, but we are competing with Chinese influence there as well, and the Pentagon has often proven an impossible customer due to its antiquated bureaucracy.

Any technological improvements will be meaningless if vulnerable to being infiltrated or stolen. Recent legislation continues support for the DoD as it assesses and mitigates risks to its supply chains posed by adversaries. Both the government and contractors need to cooperate on and use modern verification tools to identify trusted suppliers and manufacturers, as well as fix vulnerabilities. To make these tools useful, the DoD must first establish a working digital model of its suppliers.

Lastly, while we must continue to invest in the domestic, organic industrial base, it's important to remember that we can't take on China and Russia alone — which is why the National Defense Strategy emphasizes our network of allies and partners. We must remove unnecessary barriers to industrial cooperation that degrade our collective competitive edge.

We do not have to make a false choice between investing domestically and in our allies — we can do both. Under our National Technology and Industrial Base partnership with Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, we can develop a more diverse, resilient industrial base, secure our supply chains, and become a “five eyes for defense procurement.” It's in our best interest to ensure our allies can leverage our technological advantages and we can leverage theirs.

Without a strong national security innovation base, the Pentagon cannot implement the National Defense Strategy. Congress' job is to put the appropriate, tailored policy in place and provide sufficient, predictable resources to help the industrial base meet these challenges. Together, we can harness the power of American innovation to ensure that we are able to win the wars of the future.

https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/sasc-chairman-we-must-build-the-national-security-innovation-base-our-defense-strategy-requires

On the same subject

  • US Army to conduct shoot-off for future indirect fires protection

    March 11, 2020 | International, Land

    US Army to conduct shoot-off for future indirect fires protection

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army plans to conduct a shoot-off to evaluate the best options for a future indirect fires protection capability to defend against rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missile and drones, according to a report sent to Congress and obtained by Defense News. The shoot-off that will take place at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, is fashioned much in the same way the Army recently conducted its “sense-off” to choose a new air and missile defense radar that will replace the sensor in the Army's current Patriot system, Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of the Army's air and missile defense modernization effort, told Defense News in a March 9 interview. The Army has been trying to formulate its enduring Indirect Fires Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) system for several years. It purchased two Iron Dome batteries, produced through a partnership between Rafael and Raytheon, to serve as an interim solution for cruise missile defense. The acquisition was congressionally mandated. Those batteries will be delivered by the end of the year, Gibson said. The enduring system will defeat subsonic cruise missiles with an objective requirement to defeat supersonic variants as well as group two and three UAS and RAM threats, according to the report. The Army's Sentinel A3 and future A4 version will serve as the radar for IFPC, and its command-and-control system will be the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS, which is also the brains for the Army's future Integrated Air and Missile Defense system that will replace Patriot. The intention for IFPC is to protect critical fixed or semi-fixed assets and is intended to be a more mobile solution than one that would suffice at a forward operating base, Gibson described, and it will fill in gaps between tactical short-range air defense and strategic air and missile defense such as the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System. The Army's analysis, according to the report, included looking at solutions both from the Israel Missile Defense Organization and from U.S. industry. It determined, when considering integration with IBCS and Sentinel as well as the possible schedule, that risks exist for both the U.S. and Israeli solutions. “Given the assessed risks with the potential enduring IFCP Inc 2 solutions, the Army requires additional performance data against IFPC Inc 2 threats,” the report stated. “The Army will use a competitive process consisting of two phases to reduce program risk, while considering cost and schedule parameters.” In the first phase, industry will participate in a shoot-off demonstration using proposed launcher and interceptor solutions integrated into IBCS and Sentinel. IBCS is entering a limited-user test in May after struggling through a previous limited-user test several years ago. The system has been delayed for various reasons and likely won't reach initial operational capability until the third quarter of fiscal 2022. Sentinel A4 is also not operational, so the shoot-off will use the less capable A3 variant. Following the shoot-off, the Army will evaluate proposals and data from the event, analyzing digital simulation data to make a “Best Value determination” to pick one vendor to move forward, according to the report. The shoot-off is planned for the third quarter of FY21. The Army aims to deliver initial capabilities by FY23. To make a determination on the way forward, the Army conducted analysis for an enduring IFPC solution in FY19 to include taking technical data from its Expanded Mission Area Missile program of candidate interceptors. The verification phase evaluated Raytheon's Low-Cost Active Seeker as well as its SkyHunter interceptor (the U.S. variant of Rafael's Tamir missile used in Iron Dome) and Lockheed Martin's Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile. All three of the interceptors were characterized as possible candidates for an IFPC interceptor. The Army originally planned to develop and field its own multimission launcher as part of the enduring IFPC solution but canceled that program in favor of finding a more technologically mature launcher. The service evaluated whitepapers for IFPC launchers and determined that those proposed required further development, prototyping and integration work to be used as a dedicated IFPC component, according to the report. The analysis also found the Iron Dome launcher and Tamir interceptor's performance “is highly reliant” on its own battle management system and multimission radar, and the report determined that “for Iron Dome's launcher and Tamir interceptors to be a viable option for Enduring IFPC Inc 2, the [battle management and weapons control] and [multimission radar] functions require transferring into the Army's IBCS.” And current data provided from the Israeli organization has not included component-level models such as the missile seeker, missile guidance and control, and missile fusing needed to verify that the launcher and missile would work with IBCS, the report stated. “The tightly coupled nature of Iron Dome components within the Iron Dome architecture and a lack of sufficient technical data requires further development, prototyping and integration in order to provide a potential Enduring IFPC Inc 2 capability,” the report noted. Through analysis, the service determined that the U.S.-based Expanded Mission Area Missile candidates met range and maneuverability requirements and would be able to tie into Sentinel A3 by FY23 and A4 by FY25. The Tamir interceptor's performance data proves its effectiveness when used within the Iron Dome system, but since data is lacking, it's uncertain how well it might perform when linked through IBCS to the Sentinel radar. Tamir, however, is likely to perform similarly to the LCAS missile, according to the report. While analysis shows that the interceptors are “likely” to meet enduring requirements, the shoot-off demonstration will “increase the Army's confidence in interceptor performance within the AIAMD architecture,” the report states. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/03/09/army-to-conduct-shoot-off-for-future-indirect-fires-protection-capability/

  • Budget office says amphibious ship could cost triple Navy’s estimate

    April 11, 2024 | International, Land

    Budget office says amphibious ship could cost triple Navy’s estimate

    The cost estimate is based on a hybrid military-commercial ship design, as Navy and Marine Corps leaders have indicated they’ll pursue.

  • Archer shares jump on air taxi deal with US Air Force

    August 1, 2023 | International, C4ISR, Other Defence

    Archer shares jump on air taxi deal with US Air Force

    Archer Aviation shares jumped as much as 33% on Monday after the air taxi maker entered into a deal to provide up to six of its "Midnight" aircraft to the U.S. Air Force.

All news