Back to news

May 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Securing technological superiority requires a joint US-Israel effort

By: Bradley Bowman  

The United States is now engaged in an intense military technology competition with the Chinese Communist Party. The ability of U.S. troops to deter and defeat great power authoritarian adversaries hangs in the balance. To win this competition, Washington must beef up its military cooperative research and development efforts with tech-savvy democratic allies. At the top of that list should be Israel.

Two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee understand this well. Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced S 3775, the “United States-Israel Military Capability Act of 2020,” on Wednesday. This bipartisan legislation would require the establishment of a U.S.-Israel operations-technology working group. As the senators wrote in a February letter to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, the working group would help ensure U.S. “warfighters never encounter a more technologically advanced foe.”

Many Americans may be surprised to learn that they can no longer take U.S. military technological superiority for granted. In his new book, “The Kill Chain,” former Senate Armed Services Committee staff director Chris Brose notes that, over the last decade, the United States loses war games against China “almost every single time.”

To halt this trend, the Pentagon must shift its ongoing modernization efforts into high gear. Early cooperative R&D with the “Startup Nation” can help in this regard. Israel is one of America's closest and most technologically advanced allies. The country boasts an “innovative and agile defense technology sector” that is a “global leader in many of the technologies important to Department of Defense modernization efforts,” as the legislation notes.

Some may deem the working group unnecessary, citing the deep and broad cooperation that already exists between the United States and Israel. But, as the legislation explains, “dangerous United States military capability gaps continue to emerge that a more systematic and institutionalized United States-Israel early cooperative research and development program could have prevented.”

Consider the fact, for example, that the Pentagon only last year acquired for U.S. tanks active protection systems from Israel that had been operational there since 2011. Consequently, U.S. soldiers operated for years in tanks and armored vehicles around the world lacking the cutting-edge protection Washington could have provided against missiles and rockets. That put U.S. soldiers in unnecessary risk.

Such examples put the burden of proof on those who may be tempted to reflexively defend the status quo as good enough.

Given the breakneck speed of our military technology race with the Chinese Communist Party, it's clear the continued emergence of decade-long delays in adopting crucial technology is no longer something we can afford.

One of the reasons for these delays and failures to team up with Israeli partners at the beginning of the process is that U.S. and Israeli defense suppliers sometimes find it difficult to secure Washington's approval for combined efforts to research and produce world-class weapons. Some requests to initiate combined U.S.-Israel R&D programs linger interminably in bureaucratic no-man's land, failing to elicit a timely decision.

Confronted by deadly and immediate threats, Israel often has little choice but to push ahead alone with unilateral R&D programs. When that happens, the Pentagon misses out on Israel's sense of urgency that could have led to the more expeditious fielding of weapons to U.S. troops. And Israel misses out on American innovation prowess as well as on the Pentagon's economy of scale, which would lower unit costs and help both countries stretch their finite defense budgets further.

Secretary Esper appears to grasp the opportunity. “If there are ways to improve that, we should pursue it,” he testified on March 4, 2020, in response to a question on the U.S.-Israel working group proposal. “The more we can cooperate together as allies and partners to come up with common solutions, the better,” Esper said.

According to the legislation, the working group would serve as a standing forum for the United States and Israel to “systematically share intelligence-informed military capability requirements,” with a goal of identifying capabilities that both militaries need.

It would also provide a dedicated mechanism for U.S. and Israeli defense suppliers to “expeditiously gain government approval to conduct joint science, technology, research, development, test, evaluation, and production efforts.” The legislation's congressional reporting requirement would hold the working group accountable for providing quick answers to U.S. and Israeli defense supplier requests.

That's a benefit of the working group that will only become more important when the economic consequences of the coronavirus put additional, downward pressure on both defense budgets.

Once opportunities for early cooperative U.S.-Israel R&D are identified and approved, the working group would then facilitate the development of “combined United States-Israel plans to research, develop, procure, and field weapons systems and military capabilities as quickly and economically as possible.”

In the military technology race with the Chinese Communist Party, the stakes are high and the outcome is far from certain. A U.S.-Israel operations technology working group represents an essential step to ensure the United States and its democratic allies are better equipped than their adversaries.

Bradley Bowman is the senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/22/securing-technological-superiority-requires-a-joint-us-israel-effort/

On the same subject

  • All aboard the Sea Train!

    June 2, 2020 | International, Naval

    All aboard the Sea Train!

    Imagine the following scenario. Four medium-sized U.S. Navy vessels depart from a port along the United States' coast. There's no crew aboard any of them. About 15 nautical miles off the coast, the four vessels rendezvous, autonomously arranging themselves in a line. Using custom mechanisms, they attach to each other to form a train, except they're in the water and there's no railroad to guide them. In this configuration the vessels travel 6,500 nautical miles across the open ocean to Southeast Asia. But as they approach their destination, they disconnect, splitting up as each unmanned ship goes its own way to conduct independent operations, such as collecting data with a variety of onboard sensors. Once those operations are complete, the four reunite, form a train and make the return journey home. This is the Sea Train, and it may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is investing in several technologies to make it a reality. “The goal of the Sea Train program is to be able to develop and demonstrate long-range deployment capabilities for a distributed fleet of medium-sized tactical unmanned vessels,” said Andrew Nuss, DARPA's program manager for Sea Train. “So we're really focusing on ways to enable extended transoceanic transit and long-range naval operations, and the way that we're looking to do that is by taking advantage of some of the efficiencies that we can gain in a system of connected vessels — that's where the name ‘Sea Train' comes from.” According to DARPA, the current security environment has incentivized the Navy and the Marine Corps to move from a small number of exquisite, large manned platforms to a more distributed fleet structure comprised of smaller vessels, including unmanned platforms that can conduct surveillance and engage in electronic warfare and offensive operations. While these unmanned vessels are smaller and more agile than their large, manned companions, they are limited by the increased wave-making resistance that plagues smaller vessels. And due to their size, they simply can't carry enough fuel to make the long-range journeys envisioned by DARPA without refueling. By connecting the vessels — physically or in a formation — the agency hopes the Sea Train can reduce that wave resistance and enable long-range missions. In February, the agency released a broad agency announcement to find possible vendors. Citing agency practice, Nuss declined to share how many proposals were submitted, although he did say there was significant interest in the announcement. The agency completed its review of any submissions and expects to issue contracts by the end of the fiscal year. Sea Train is expected to consist of two 18-month periods, where contractors will work to develop and test technologies that could enable the Sea Train concept. The program will culminate with model testing in scaled ocean conditions. If successful, DARPA hopes to see the technologies adopted by the Navy for its unmanned platforms. “What we're looking to do is be able to reduce the risk in this unique deployment approach,” Ness said. “And then be able to just deliver that set of solutions to the Navy in the future, to be able to demonstrate to them that there is, potentially, a new way to deploy these vessels, to be able to provide far more operational range without the risk of relying on actual refueling or in-port refueling.” And while DARPA's effort is focused on medium-sized unmanned vessels — anywhere from 12 to 50 meters in length — the lessons learned could be applied to larger or smaller vessels, manned or unmanned. https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2020/06/01/all-aboard-the-sea-train/

  • The military is scrambling to understand the aviation crash risk from a new 5G sale

    December 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

    The military is scrambling to understand the aviation crash risk from a new 5G sale

    By: Valerie Insinna and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — As part of a broader move to boost the 5G industry in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission on Dec. 8 began auctioning a portion of C-band electromagnetic spectrum, a move the committee's chairman, Ajit Pai, celebrated as “a big day for American consumers and U.S. leadership in 5G.” But, in the weeks leading up to the auction, more than a dozen commercial aviation groups warned the sale could, as one study put it, lead to “catastrophic failures” with the potential for “multiple fatalities.” At the core of the concerns are radar altimeters, a critical piece of aviation technology used by military, commercial and civil aircraft of all types — including helicopters and unmanned aerial systems — to measure the distance between an aircraft and the ground. The aviation groups worry that 5G operations on the spectrum sold by the FCC could cause interference that would provide inaccurate readings on altimeters or cause their failure outright, in essence leaving pilots unaware of how far they are from the ground and potentially leading to crashes over the United States. According to a memo obtained by Defense News, those concerns are shared by the head of the Federal Aviation Administration and the number two at the Department of Transportation, who are calling on the FCC to pause the sale so the safety issue can be studied more closely. The FCC, in turn, has said its own technical studies show little to no risk involved and it intends to continue moving forward. Now, with the auction underway, the Defense Department is scrambling to catch up. The Pentagon has yet to determine the effect on military aircraft and has not established a formal position on the sale, with officials rushing behind the scenes to set up meetings and understand the potential long-term impacts. A Pentagon official, in response to questions from Defense News, would only say the department's policy board on federal aviation and aviation cyber initiative task force — an interagency organization led by the FAA — are reviewing reports by industry groups about the risk of 5G interference. Senior leaders from the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, and the aviation cyber initiative plan to meet Dec. 21 “to discuss findings and to establish an interagency way ahead to validate and respond to these reports,” the official stated. Among those expected to attend are Brig. Gen. Robert Barrie Jr., the official who manages Army aviation assets; Brig. Gen. Eric DeLange, director of the Air Force cyberspace operations and warfighter communications office; and several cyber experts from the FAA and DHS. Perhaps most notably, Honeywell Industries, a key producer of radar altimeters, has also been invited to discuss possible alternatives to current systems — a sign that the defense industry is taking the issue seriously. Honeywell declined to comment. If the spectrum sale continues, some experts are warning a best case scenario may be that the department has to spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to design, procure and install new radar altimeters across the military's fleet of airborne systems. The worst case? As one senior government official with experience in aviation said, “There will be accidents, property's going to be destroyed and people are going to die.” The ongoing dispute Under the Trump administration, the FCC has focused on the sale of spectrum in order to goose the nascent 5G industry, which administration officials see as a driver for American economic growth. Branded as the 5G FAST Plan, the commission has moved quickly to sell C-band spectrum. This particular auction involves spectrum in the 3.7–3.98 GHz frequency, with the hope of selling more than 5,000 new flexible-use overlay licenses. Satellite operators using the C-Band have agreed to repack their operations out of the band's lower 300 megahertz (3.7-4.0 GHz) into the upper 200 megahertz (4.0-4.2 GHz), in two stages. They expect to complete the move in December 2023. As of Dec. 17, more than 50 bidders had reportedly put forth over $15 billion in offers for the spectrum rights. Currently, the 3.7–3.98 GHz frequency portion of the C-Band is relatively quiet, occupied predominantly by low-powered satellites. For decades, this made the neighboring 4.2-4.4 GHz frequency a perfect place for the operation of radar altimeters, which are also called radio altimeters. But that frequency may not stay quiet for long. Once 5G telecommunications are introduced in the 3.7-3.98 portion of the band, there is a “major risk” that those systems will create “harmful interference” to radar altimeters, according to an October study from the RTCA, a trade organization that works with the FAA to develop safety standards. “The results of the study performed clearly indicate that this risk is widespread and has the potential for broad impacts to aviation operations in the United States, including the possibility of catastrophic failures leading to multiple fatalities, in the absence of appropriate mitigations,” the RTCA stated in its report. Research for the report was conducted by the Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute, a cooperative research organization based out of Texas A&M University. Radio altimeters are critical during landings, once an aircraft moves below 2,500 feet from the ground. At that point, no other instruments provide an accurate measurement of a plane's distance from the ground. “It's so important to have an accurate reading, because if it's a bad reading it could lead to the airplane doing something you don't want it to do.” explained Terry McVenes, the RTCA president and chief executive. McVenes is a former Boeing safety executive with 30 years' experience in the commercial aviation industry. “If your airplane thought it was 1,000 feet above the ground but was only 50 feet above the ground, well... you could have a problem,” he said. The trade group filed the report with the FCC in early October, and shortly afterward met with an FCC engineering team. But since then, “We've heard nothing back from the FCC, had no other direct interactions with them” outside the official filling process, he said. The release of the study triggered a last-minute request by 12 trade groups, including the Aerospace Industries Association, which represents military aviation companies, to consider mitigation efforts based on the report. The groups called the findings “the most comprehensive analysis and assessment to date on this subject, based on the best assumptions, parameters, and data... It has been peer reviewed for accuracy and validity and should not be dismissed by the Commission.” The report has also gained the attention of Steven Bradbury, the acting deputy secretary for transportation, and Steve Dickson, the FAA administrator, who in a Dec. 1 letter obtained by Defense News warned that the spectrum sale could specifically damage both the Terrain Awareness Warning System, a major safety function for aircraft, and Autoland features relied on for pilots when landing a plane. “Given the scope of the safety risk, and based upon our current knowledge, it is unclear what measures will be necessary to ensure safe operations in the [National Aerospace System], or how long it will take to implement such measures,” the two leaders wrote. “Depending upon the results of further analysis, it may be appropriate to place restrictions on certain types of operations, which would reduce access to core airports in the U.S. and, thus, reduce the capacity and efficiency” of commercial aviation. That letter, sent to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, was requested to be added to the FCC's public docket. However, the letter has not been posted to the FCC's public docket as of press time. The FCC and supporters of expanding 5G argue that the concerns are overblown. “In the C-Band Order, the Commission concluded that our rules would protect radio altimeters used by aircraft, and we continue to have no reason to believe that 5G operations in the C-Band will cause harmful interference to radio altimeters,” Will Wiquist, a spokesman for the FCC, said in a statement. “Among other things, these altimeters operate with more than 200 megahertz of separation from the C-band spectrum to be auctioned, more protection than is afforded in some other countries. “Moreover, the RTCA report was prepared outside of the joint aviation/wireless industry group that was set up at the Commission's request and is not a consensus position of that group. Indeed, at least one other member of that multi-stakeholder group has expressed significant concerns with the study and several of its assumptions, and the Commission's experts have concerns with this study as well.” The member group that expressed concerns about the study is the wireless trade association CTIA, which in December filled with the FCC a document that called the findings “lacking and unreliable” and “unsound and unsupported.” Among the specific concerns raised by CTIA were that altimeter requirements used in the report were overly stringent, that it did not break down results by altimeter brand and model, and that the report relied on “unrealistic” scenarios during testing. McVenes said RTCA is open to conducting the research again if presented with new data to work with, but has yet to see that information from CTIA or the FCC. Risks to military aviation Although the RTCA study looked exclusively at civil and commercial aircraft, almost all military aircraft are equipped with radar altimeters that are very similar to their commercial counterparts, said the senior government official. Defense News granted anonymity for this official to speak candidly about the risks to pilot safety. While radar altimeters made for military aircraft are sometimes built to slightly more stringent requirements — having the ability to function in extremely cold or hot environments, for instance, or to withstand higher gravitational forces — they still reside on the same portion of the spectrum as commercial ones and are vulnerable to the same interference, the senior government official said. The cargo planes and aerial refueling tankers operated by the Air Force's Air Mobility Command would be most hindered by the interference produced by 5G due to their similarities to commercial aircraft, said Mike Holmes, a retired Air Force four-star general and former head of Air Combat Command. Holmes reviewed the RTCA report at Defense News' request. Many of the Air Force's mobility assets are either based on commercial passenger jets, such as the Boeing 767-derived KC-46 tanker, or are equipped with commercial off-the-shelf avionics. As such, certain mobility aircraft are approved to conduct landings in bad weather conditions when the pilot has to rely on the aircraft's instruments — such as the radar altimeter — instead of visual cues. “You wouldn't be able to fly that approach if your radar altimeter was being interfered with and you couldn't get a good signal,” Holmes said. “For the military...you'd probably divert someplace else.” For tactical aircraft, the bigger concern would be low-level flights over terrain such as mountains. Fighter pilots use their radar altimeters when flying close to the ground to evade enemy radar or surface-to-air threats. However, Holmes noted that not all fighter jets — such as the 1970s era F-15C — have radar altimeters, and that pilots would still be able to rely on visual cues. Still, he said, if a radar altimeter is offering faulty information due to interference, that could lull pilots into a false sense of security about how far they are from the ground. “Part of [the problem] is going to be trying to know whether you're getting interference or not,” he said. The senior government official noted that the special operations community could be particularly hurt by 5G interference. Certain aircrews of platforms, such as the C-130 or C-17, receive specific training to fly special operations low level missions, which involve flying close to the ground and inserting or extracting special operators, and those training missions may become more difficult to execute if 5G interference is a problem. This training “is often executed under the cover of darkness. Depth and obstacle perception can be hindered in darkness due to the human eye's cell structure,” the official said. “Night vision goggles provide compensation but still limit the pilot's situational awareness.” If the sales go through, the military will likely have to modify or replace its altimeters to meet whatever new safety standards the FAA eventually approves to mitigate the risks of 5G interference, Holmes said. “If you go ahead and give up this part of the spectrum, the interference will drive changes that have to be made either to modify the equipment that is being used for 5G, to modify the equipment that are on airplanes, or to modify the procedures that determine how you use that equipment,” Holmes said. Replacing or modifying altimeters will take time and funding — two commodities defense experts predict will be in short supply over the coming years — as defense budgets flatten. In the near term, Holmes projects the services will change their training practices to eliminate any added risk to pilots caused by altimeter interference, such as restricting pilots of certain aircraft from landing in bad weather or ensuring that pilots of fighter aircraft take off with enough fuel so that they can divert to another airport if their radar altimeter no longer works. In short, the military will have to give up money, time and effectiveness to fix the problem. “The outcome would be lack of efficiency. You wouldn't fly [certain] approaches in bad weather. So there would be times you couldn't go do what you were [planning on] doing, whether that's moving passengers or cargo in the civilian world or whether that was passengers or cargo in the military,” Holmes said. “But ultimately, I would think the impact is going to be greater on the commercial airline world than it was on the military world.” A billion dollar problem While the satellite operators who currently operate within 3.7-3.98 GHz will receive some proceeds of the sale, allowing them to move to another portion of the spectrum, no funding is set to be given to the civil, commercial and government entities that rely on radar altimeters for safe aerospace operations. As a result, it is likely that the U.S. military will have to replace “many or most” of the radar altimeters currently onboard its airplanes, helicopters and drones, the senior government official said. And because radar altimeters have all been developed to operate on the same portion of the spectrum, there is no off-the-shelf replacement already on the market for which interference wouldn't be a concern. On the commercial side, McVenes said if industry has to replace altimeters across its fleet, a price tag of “several billion dollars is probably on the low estimate.” That price tag could well jump for the military side, given the complexity of work on military systems - it is easier to swap out a part on a commercial plane than a stealth-coated fighter - and the infamous prices of defense procurement. Meanwhile, the Defense Department could need to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the engineering work necessary to develop new altimeters, procuring those systems, testing and recertifying each platform for normal operations, and finally, installing the new hardware on potentially hundreds or thousands of aircraft across the military's inventory. “It will take many years, if not decades,” the senior government official said. In the two months since the report was released, industry has jockeyed to get more time to study the issue and to put measures in place to mitigate the risks. In a Nov. 17 letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Aerospace Industries Association and 13 other aerospace trade groups implored members of Congress to take action to protect the frequency bands used by radar altimeters. “We are concerned that without this congressional intervention to understand potential implications and ramifications, decisions will be made with a frightening lack of understanding of aviation requirements,” the groups stated. Help from Congress seemingly came Dec. 7, when Rep. Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat who leads the House committee, sent a letter to FCC Chairman Pai calling for the commission to postpone the sale. “These RTCA findings are alarming; they not only align with earlier research identifying harmful effects of 5G networks to radio altimeters, but they reflect a clear need for the FCC to return to the drawing board with this premature plan,” he wrote. “There is no question that additional study is needed to understand the full extent and severity of 5G interference with radio altimeters and whether any mitigations are feasible — or even possible — to ensure flight safety. “We must never take a chance with aviation safety — and at no point should commercial interests be placed above it.” A day later, the FCC pressed forward with the auction. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/12/21/the-military-is-scrambling-to-understand-the-aviation-crash-risk-from-a-new-5g-sale

  • Top départ pour le futur avion de combat franco-allemand

    December 7, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Top départ pour le futur avion de combat franco-allemand

    Le futur chasseur franco-allemand devra remplacer, à l'horizon 2035-2040, le Rafale français et l'Eurofighter déployé dans les armées allemandes. Découvrez les noms des industriels qui s'envoleront avec lui. Le coup d'envoi industriel du futur avion de combat franco-allemand est donné. La ministre des Armées Florence Parly et son homologue allemande Ursula von der Leyen se sont accordées pour attribuer l'an prochain aux industriels européens les premiers contrats d'études pour affiner le concept de système aérien de combat du futur (Scaf). Le futur chasseur franco-allemand devra remplacer, à l'horizon 2035-2040, le Rafale français et l'Eurofighter déployé dans les armées allemandes. Dassault Aviation a été confirmé comme le chef de file industriel du programme. Il travaillera avec Airbus pour l'étude de l'architecture du Scaf et sur un démonstrateur d'appareil. Safrandirigera celle sur le démonstrateur du moteur en partenariat avec le motoriste allemand MTU. Thales, qui fournit l'électronique et les systèmes de combat du Rafale, n'a pas été pas mentionné en premier rang dans l'attribution des contrats d'études et fait figure de grand perdant de ce premier round industriel. La France et l'Allemagne ont déjà rappelé qu'ils comptaient ouvrir leur collaboration à d'autres pays européens, notamment à l'Espagne. https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/top-depart-pour-le-futur-avion-de-combat-franco-allemand.N774254

All news