Shield AI to let Hivemind software fly three more aircraft

On the same subject

• 

  March 22, 2021 | International, C4ISR

  Pentagon, Intel partner to make more US microchips for military

  Amid worries about potential tampering with chips from overseas, the project seeks to convert more microchips into higher-performing designs with more security features.

• 

  September 26, 2018 | International, C4ISR

  Pentagon Extends JEDI Deadline Again—With a Catch

  By Heather Kuldell, Managing Editor The department is requiring bidders to deliver their proposals in person. Companies bidding on the Defense Department's multibillion-dollar Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure cloud contract will need to hand-deliver their proposals. “In lieu of electronic submission, an offeror's entire proposal shall be captured on one or more DVDs and submitted in person only. No other forms of submission will be accepted,” the department said in an amendment to the JEDI request for proposal posted Monday. The department also pushed the deadline back a few days. Bidders must contact JEDI procurement officials by 5 p.m. Eastern time Oct. 10 to get logistical details for turning in their proposals in person on Oct. 12. It's the second time the department extended JEDI's original Sept. 17 deadline, following other amendments that answered industry questions and a pre-award bid protest from Oracle. Defense officials describe the JEDI acquisition as the foundation for hosting mission-critical data for warfighters around the world. But since it was announced a year ago, the procurement has drawn scrutiny from industry and lawmakers for requiring a single cloud service provider instead of multiple vendors. The contract could be worth up to $10 billion over 10 years if all the follow-on options are exercised. But before the project sees a cent, Congress wants more insight into JEDI and the rest of the department's cloud computing projects. In the final conference report for the Defense-related minibus, appropriators order the defense secretary to deliver a cloud-centric budget accounting plan and a detailed, enterprisewide cloud computing strategy that includes “defining opportunities for multiple cloud service providers.” The department would be prohibited from spending anything on JEDI or the Defense Enterprise Office Solutions—another multibillion-dollar cloud contract—until 90 days after those plans are delivered to defense committees. “The conferees believe cloud computing, if implemented properly, will have far-reaching benefits for improving the efficiency of day-to-day operations of the Department of Defense, as well as enabling new military capabilities critical to maintaining a tactical advantage over adversaries,” lawmakers wrote in the joint explanatory statement. The Senate passed the minibus—which also includes labor, health, education and a continuing resolution—last week. The House is scheduled to vote on the package this week. https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2018/09/pentagon-extends-jedi-deadline-again-catch/151541/

• 

  June 27, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  Maintaining UK and US military relationship could cost Britain more than $10 billion a year

  LONDON — Britain needs to raise defense spending by over £8 billion a year, or U.S. $10.59 billion, to not undermine the military relationship with the U.S. says a report by the parliamentary defence committee. The report, which looks at the U.K.'s defense relations with the U.S. and NATO, recommends Britain increases the percentage of gross domestic product being allocated to the military first to 2.5 percent and eventually 3 percent if the country is to maintain the military relationship with the U.S. and keep its leading role in NATO. “The U.K. armed forces and the Treasury benefit from our close relationship with the U.S. However, that will continue to be true only while the U.K. military retains both the capacity and capability to maintain interoperability with the U.S. military and to relieve U.S. burdens. For this to be the case the U.K. armed forces must be funded appropriately,” said the report released June 26. The lawmakers urged a significant rise in a defense budget which currently just manages to squeeze above the 2 percent of gross domestic product demanded by NATO for defense spending. “We calculate that raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP would result in a forecast spend of £50 billion per annum and raising it to 3% of GDP would take this to £60 billion per annum,” said the lawmakers. The defense budget this year is set at £37 billion with small real term increases expected annually up to 2022. A rise to 3 percent would see defence spending return to a level — in GDP percentage terms —that has not been seen since 1995. The release of the document comes at a bad time for anyone advocating increases in defense spending here. Last week Chancellor Philip Hammond, an ex-defense secretary, revealed plans to spend an additional £20 billion a year on health care and made it clear that there was little or nothing left to bolster the finances of other departments, including defense. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has been battling for months to secure additional funding to fill a black hole that the National Audit Office, the government's financial watchdog, has previously estimated could be anything between £4.8 billion and £20 billion in equipment spending alone over the next decade. The exact amount depends to some degree on how much the military can save in efficiency improvements and reprioritizing and cutting capabilities and programs. The headline outcomes of a Minstry of Defence review into the future size and shape of British forces, officially called the Modernising Defence Programme, could come at the NATO summit scheduled for Brussels starting July 11. Media reports Sunday on the defense funding battle highlighted the seemingly growing rift between Williamson and senior government figures over the issue. The reports followed strong denials from Prime Minister Theresa May last week that the government here was considering a watering down of Britain's ‘tier-one' status as a military power after the Financial Times reported that May asked Williamson to justify continuance of that position. The U.S, Britain, China, Russia and France are the only nations with a tier one status — which basically means they are able to fight nuclear, conventional and other conflicts around the world. The committee said military-to-military engagement between the U.K. and the U.S. was one of the linchpins of the bilateral relationship between the two nations. The report said the U.K. benefits greatly from the width and depth of the U.K.-U.S. defense and security relationship, but such a relationship requires a degree of interoperability that can be sustained only through investment in U.K. armed forces. The importance of the military relationship between the U.S. and Europe's leading military power also extends into NATO. Lawmakers said the relationship is vital to the functioning of NATO while the U.K.'s leading contribution to the alliance helps to sustain the relationship between London and Washington. Julian Lewis, the Defence Committee chairman, said in a statement: “Defence spending is an area where a strong message needs to be sent to our allies and adversaries alike. The Government has consistently talked about increasing the U.K.'s commitment to NATO after our departure from the European Union. An increased commitment, in the face of new and intensified threats, means that further investment is essential,” said Lewis. The warning in the report over the risks to the military relationship between London and Washington follows a similar warning in February by U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis that Britain had to retain a credible military if the relationship between the two nations was to endure and strengthen. Williamson said that in financial terms alone the U.K. benefits to the tune of £3 billion a year from the U.K.-U.S. defense relationship. John Spellar MP, the Defence Committee's senior Labour Party member and former armed forces minister said the inquiry has “underlined the importance of the U.K.-U.S. relationship in the area of defense and security and emphasizes the benefit which the U.K. receives as a result.” “We have heard that there are perceptions in the U.S. that the U.K.'s defense capabilities have slipped and that concerns have been raised about the U.K.'s ability to operate independently. We need to challenge this perception and the Modernising Defence Programme is an excellent opportunity to do so,” said Spellar. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/26/maintaining-uk-and-us-military-relationship-could-cost-britain-more-than-10-billion-a-year/