May 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace

Space Force lays out acquisitions reforms in new report

In a new proposal, the U.S. Space Force is asking Congress to overhaul the tools it uses to acquire new space systems, allowing the new service to move with more agility and keep pace with near-peer adversaries.

“Our nation requires a bold Alternative Space Acquisition System that not only matches the pace of change but also manages unpredictability and regularly disrupts our adversaries' threat cadence," the Department of the U.S. Air Force report concludes. “The features outlined in this report will create a new space acquisition approach for the USSF that is the envy of all other services and ultimately enables the USSF to rapidly leverage industry innovation to outpace space threats.”

When Congress passed legislation establishing the Space Force as the nation's sixth branch of the armed services in December, it included a provision requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report by the end of March on whether the military should adopt an alternative space acquisition system. While the Pentagon did deliver a report to Congress in March, it largely kicked the can down the road on any specific acquisitions reforms. Space Force leadership have touted this more detailed acquisitions report as “groundbreaking” in recent appearances.

The new report, which was first reported by Bloomberg Government, includes nine specific proposals to improve Space Force contracting, although it doesn't make any suggestions towards unifying the various organizations involved in purchasing space platforms and systems, such as the Space Development Agency, the Space Rapid Capabilities Office, the Space and Missile Systems Center, or the National Reconnaissance Office, which purchases satellites for the intelligence community.

Instead, the report's recommendations include changes to the contracting tools and reporting requirements the Space Force will use to acquire new systems, with a focus on increasing flexibility and delegating authority. Three of the suggestions require legislative action, while the remaining proposals will simply require internal Department of Defense adjustments.

Perhaps the most important recommendation in the report, according to the Air Force, is the consolidation of budget line items along mission portfolios, such as missile warning or communications, instead of by platform. While this has been done on a limited basis in the past for the Space Rapid Capabilities Office and some classified efforts, it marks a change from standard DoD budgeting practices.

Theoretically, this would allow the Space Force to move funding between missile warning systems without having to submit reprogramming requests to Congress, something it did several times last year in order to move up the delivery date for the first Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared satellite. The Air Force's repeated reprogramming requests rankled some members of Congress, leading to a fight between lawmakers and the White House over the program's funding for fiscal 2020.

The Air Force claims this fix is needed to give program managers the flexibility to adapt to growing threats. According to the report, transparency at the program level would be preserved in future budget documents. This change would not require legislation.

Beyond that, the Air Force is asking Congress for permission to push milestone decision authority down the chain of command, similar to what's been demonstrated by the Missile Defense Agency and National Reconnaissance Office. This change would speed up decision making for space programs.

The third major change the Air Force is pursuing is authority for the Space Force to use incremental funding for space systems and programs. This “Efficient Space Procurement” coding was used to acquire the fifth and sixth satellites in the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellites at the same time as well as the fifth and sixth Space-Based Infrared System satellites, resulting in significant savings. The department claims full funding each space vehicle has lead to affordability issues in the past, and can “lead to production breaks, obsolescence, and industrial base impacts.” Instead, the department wants to spread out funding for satellites over multiple years to help keep costs in check and avoid funding spikes.

Other changes include streamlining requirements validation and reporting requirements.

“Under these reforms, our Nation's newest military service will have unprecedented agility to build resilient, defendable, and affordable space capabilities through streamlined processes and closer partnerships with one of America's decisive advantages—its innovative and rapidly changing commercial space industry,” Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett wrote in the introduction to the report.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/05/21/space-force-lays-out-acquisitions-reforms-in-new-report/

On the same subject

April 20, 2018 | International, Naval

Why the Navy wants more of these hard-to-find software developers
By: Mark Pomerleau With a relative dearth of cyber expertise in the military, Congress mandated last year the services begin direct commissioning pilot programs. The Navy, however has been doing direct commissioning for highly skilled software engineers for a few years, albeit on a small scale. The cyber warfare engineer (CWE) program is a highly competitive program with officers on five year rotations performing software or tool development for cyber operators. CWEs serve as members of the cyber mission force, the Navy's cyber mission force teams that serve as the cyber warriors for U.S. Cyber Command, producing cyber tools, but can also conduct target analysis, vulnerability research, and counter-measure development against malicious cyber activities. Since 2011, the Navy has only recruited 25 of these commissioned officers to its ranks. “Twenty-five developers in the Navy as military officers is definitely not enough,” Lt. Christopher Liu, the most senior cyber warfare engineer told Fifth Domain in an interview at the Navy League's Sea Air Space conference April 9. With a relative dearth of cyber expertise in the military, Congress mandated last year the services begin direct commissioning pilot programs. The Navy, however has been doing direct commissioning for highly skilled software engineers for a few years, albeit on a small scale. The cyber warfare engineer (CWE) program is a highly competitive program with officers on five year rotations performing software or tool development for cyber operators. CWEs serve as members of the cyber mission force, the Navy's cyber mission force teams that serve as the cyber warriors for U.S. Cyber Command, producing cyber tools, but can also conduct target analysis, vulnerability research, and counter-measure development against malicious cyber activities. Since 2011, the Navy has only recruited 25 of these commissioned officers to its ranks. “Twenty-five developers in the Navy as military officers is definitely not enough,” Lt. Christopher Liu, the most senior cyber warfare engineer told Fifth Domain in an interview at the Navy League's Sea Air Space conference April 9. “We definitely need to increase the billets and increase the amount that we can hire ... to have more talents to be able to work on the cyber mission,” he said. “As soon as the number increases, we'll be able to expand the program rather than just five years to eight years, hopefully make it into a 20 year career so people can get trained up and work on missions and not be forced into different fields.” The Pentagon has been besieged by concerns about the DoD's ability to both retain and attract cyber talent among its ranks when similar jobs in the private sector pay significantly more. Vice Adm. Michael Gilday, commander of 10th Fleet/Fleet Cyber Command, acknowledged in recent congressional testimony that the military is not competitive with the private sector and noted that the base pay for the CWE position is around $37,000 a year. “That's what we pay somebody to answer the phones around here,” Senator Claire McCaskill, responded to Gilday interrupting him in frustration. “We're asking them to have incredible expertise. That seems to me totally unrealistic.” Some current CWEs feel the work they're doing inside the Navy has greater meaning than similar work they did in the private sector. “I find that this is a lot more fulfilling,” Ensign Jordan Acedera, the most junior CWE told Fifth Domain. “You finish a project, you're given something that's a lot more challenging and that really tests you.” For Lt. (j.g.) George John, who was formerly writing software at a stock trading company, work with the CWE provides a better environment that's not driven so much by profit margins and hitting quarterly revenue targets. “We don't have to worry about profitability or bringing to market,” he said. “We can pursue a little more ... what's possible. Throw stuff against the wall, see what sticks, take our time to figure out a plan of action.” One of the biggest challenges, however, is lack of knowledge of the program, even inside the Navy. “You still walk across captains and commander who say 'CWE, what in god's name is that,” John said. With more CWE personnel in the force, the Navy could build a more informed and skilled software engineering cadre, the group said. “There's tons of software. Everybody has some type of software pet project,” John said. “To be able to get more CWEs on those things and coordinate with one another and say here's what [Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services] is doing with their communications and their infrastructure. How are we doing that differently on the base side? You can talk and address security concerns with one another. Just within the cyber operations realm, Liu said, as the headcount increases, the CWEs could work on the requirements the operational community within the cyber mission force rather than having to prioritize projects. They could even start to look at developing capability prior to a specific requirement coming in as a means of staying ahead of the game as opposed to waiting for and reacting on requirements from operators. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/11/why-the-navy-wants-more-of-these-hard-to-find-software-developers/
February 27, 2020 | International, Other Defence

Arms control decisions by Trump administration could be ‘imminent.’ Will China be involved?
MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. — With a major arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia set to expire next February, members of the nonproliferation community have been watching for signs that negotiations may begin in earnest. For those observers, some welcome news: Movement on the Trump administration's arms control plan is “imminent,” according to a senior defense official familiar with internal administration discussions. However, what that looks like appears to be up in the air: a short-term extension of the New START agreement with Russia; something that involves nuclear-armed China; a combination of those two; or all parties walking away entirely. “All the options are literally on the interagency table,” the official told Defense News on condition of anonymity. The New START agreement, signed in 2010, is an arms control pact between Russia and the U.S. that restricts each country to a total of 1,550 warheads deployed on bombers, submarines and in underground silos. Following the dissolution of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, New START is the only major nuclear arms control agreement left between the two nuclear powers. China has traditionally refused to sign onto arms control agreements. But Beijing has become a focus for those in Washington convinced that any new arms control agreement must include the Asian nation. China is estimated by the Federation of American Scientists to have 290 nuclear warheads, compared to more than 6,000 for Russia and the U.S. each, and the country is investing in nuclear modernization efforts. Though top Chinese officials made clear that Beijing will not participate in trilateral talks, U.S. President Donald Trump in December expressed optimism that a deal could happen, saying Chinese officials “were extremely excited about getting involved. ... So some very good things can happen with respect to that.” While traveling last week to tour the intercontinental ballistic missile fields at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, Defense Secretary Mark Esper declined to speculate on the state of negotiations and what he would recommend Trump do. But he did indicate there would be a meeting at his level “soon” on the issue. “If we proceed forward [with New START], we have to include Russia's new strategic weapons. They have to be included in the treaty. Number two, we should include Russia's nonstrategic nuclear weapons. They have nearly 2,000 of them,” Esper said. “Then I think we should put on the table: Can we bring China into the fold? We're trying to create strategic stability. It's hard to do that if you have a country of China's capacity and capability outside of that treaty.” Speaking at Minot later, Esper added: “If we want to preserve strategic stability using arms control as a counterpart of that, as a tool in that toolkit, then China should be in as well.” State of discussion While some have theorized that the Trump administration is trying to run out the clock on negotiations, the official ascribed the slow public movement to myriad “distractions” around Washington that has sucked attention from Trump, Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The official added that the outbreak of the coronavirus known as COVID-19, which originated in China, has made discussions with Chinese counterparts difficult. There have been ongoing meetings on the issue at the assistant secretary level across the Defense Department, the National Security Council, the State Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration. “Ultimate decisions haven't been taken yet, but [a proposal] should be imminent,” the official said. The first challenge, timewise, is the Feb. 5, 2021, expiration date for New START. Getting something done before then may be a challenge, especially if the goal is an expanded arms control agreement that loops in China, but “physically, you could do it because it doesn't require senate ratification, just a couple of notes signed by just getting everyone — the three sides — to agree to something,” the official said. The question of New START's fate is complicated by the desire to loop in China on a new agreement. Administration officials have been working to develop a compelling case for how to convince Beijing to join a trilateral nuclear deal. The argument largely comes in two forms. First, that if China does not sign onto a nuclear arrangement of some sort, it could lead Russia or the U.S. to consider growing their own arsenals — ensuring China's nuclear inferiority at a time when the Pacific power is racing to grow its stockpile. The second argument is that great powers work on nuclear agreements together — and so joining one as equals with Washington and Moscow should appeal to Beijing's desire for recognition on the global stage. Meia Nouwens, an expert on Chinese military affairs with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, says those two arguments are the most sensible ones to put forth to Beijing, particularly the appeal to China as a great power. She also speculated that if China's economy takes a downturn, it may find cooperating with the rules-based international system to be a “greater priority” than a China-first agenda. But, Nouwens predicts, “it will require the U.S. and Russia to make the first steps though before China decides to agree to reducing what it views as an already significantly smaller Chinese nuclear arsenal. The trust isn't there.” Rose Gottemoeller, who served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security at the U.S. State Department during the Obama administration, before becoming deputy secretary general of NATO from 2016-2019, believes a careful calibration of what, exactly, is being negotiated will be key to any negotiation involving the Chinese. “I think you can make a case for the Chinese to come to the table early on intermediate-range constraints of ground-launched missiles because they are staring at the possibility of a deployment of very capable U.S. missiles of this kind,” she said at a January event hosted by the Defense Writers Group. “But I am concerned, they have so few warheads that if you put an emphasis on controlling their warheads, the incentive is for them to run the other direction rather than come to the table,” she added. Gottemoeller also indicated that the question of extending New START is a separate one from trying to bring China into the arms control fold. “The way the expansion program of New START is written, it's written so that it remains in place four to five years, so from '21 to '26, or until superseded by a new treaty. So it's not as if the administration is stuck with New START for another five years,” she said. “Go for it. Work on the new treaty. Get it done. And then New START would be superseded by the new treaty entering into force,” if ratified. “Let's just get on with what we need to do in negotiating new treaties. I am concerned that there will be a lot of gamesmanship going on, and as I said, the Russians are excellent in that kind of game as well,” she added. “Let us not play around with leverage in this case, but simply extend the thing for five years and then get done what we need to get done, which is to negotiate these new treaties." https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/02/26/arms-control-decisions-by-trump-administration-could-be-imminent-will-china-be-involved/
September 5, 2023 | International, Land

U.S. Army awards BAE Systems $797 million contract to begin full rate production of Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle
This award brings the AMPV program into full-rate production, making it the first newly-designed and built tracked vehicle in the U.S. Army’s fleet to reach this production stage in three...

All news