Special Operations Command wants to upgrade its data analytics platform

On the same subject

• 

  December 1, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  How the Biden administration is expected to approach tech research and development

  Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — Experts expect President-elect Joe Biden's administration to build on the Trump administration's investments in emerging technologies, while adding to research and development budgets in the Defense Department and across the federal government. The incoming Biden administration signaled throughout the campaign that basic research and development funding would be a priority. Biden wrote in Foreign Affairs he would make research and development a “cornerstone” of his presidency and pointed to the United States having the “greatest research universities in the world.” “It's basic research that's the area where you get the breakthroughs, and you need long-term, sustained investments to build up a strong S&T base,” said Martijn Rasser, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security's technology and national security program. Biden's R&D investment is an expected change from the Trump administration's approach, which experts have noted is narrower in scope and focused on harnessing private sector innovation. “The reality is the U.S. private sector has eclipsed the government, which in some ways that can be good,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities. “The private sector can move with greater agility than the government, but the private sector may not be focusing on developing those exquisite technologies that we need for the war fighter.” Experts told C4ISRNET they expect the Biden administration to invest more money in basic research areas and to reform immigration laws that slowed the innovation pipeline from abroad to the United States. “China is closing in. They are spending every year more and more on R&D. They will soon, if not already, be spending as much as we are, if not more on R&D,” Langevin said told C4ISRNET. “Congress has woken up to this problem.” Basic research Perhaps the most likely area the Biden administration is poised to change is basic research and development funding. According to annual reports from the Congressional Research Service, the Trump administration consistently proposed top-line cuts to federal research and development in yearly budget proposals. This included the fiscal 2021 budget proposal's $13.8 billion decrease in defense R&D over the fiscal 2020 funding enacted by Congress. While the Pentagon has often been spared from such cuts, the Trump administration has also suggested trimming the defense-related basic research budget line — money that is a “substantial source of federal funds for university R&D,” according to the Congressional Research Service. The White House's FY21 defense-related basic research budget line asked for a reduction of about 11 percent from FY20 enacted, or a $284.2 million decrease. Biden's campaign platform calls for a four-year investment of $300 billion in R&D for new technology such as 5G, artificial intelligence, advanced materials and electric cars. “A nation speaks to and identifies its priorities by where it puts its research dollars, where it puts its money,” Langevin said. “Basic research has to be more of a priority, and that's something I'm going to encourage the Biden administration to focus on.” Michèle Flournoy, thought to be a leading contender to become the next secretary of defense, has also written about the need to increase investment in emerging technologies to counter China. In Foreign Affairs in June, Flournoy wrote that “resilient battlefield networks, artificial intelligence to support faster decision-making, fleets of unmanned systems, and hypersonic and long-range precision missiles” will “ultimately determine military success.” “Continuing to underinvest in these emerging capabilities will ultimately have dire costs for U.S. deterrence,” she wrote. Congressional and think tank reports published during the Trump administration's tenure called for an increase in basic research funding. A report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's strategic tech and advanced research subpanel, led by Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., recommended bumping up federal research and development funding from 0.7 percent to 1.1 percent of gross domestic product, or an increase of $146 billion to $230 billion. A report by the Council on Foreign Relations from 2019 applauded the Trump administration's requested increases in funding for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, now funded at $3.46 billion, and the Defense Innovation Unit, for which the Trump administration requested $164 million. Laying the groundwork Initiatives started under the Trump administration did provide a groundwork on which the Biden administration can build. Under the Trump administration, DARPA kicked off a $1.5 billion microelectronics effort. In artificial intelligence, the administration launched the American AI Initiative. However, the Council on Foreign Relations criticized that effort because it had no funding and left agencies to prioritize artificial intelligence R&D spending without metrics, while also drawing funds from other research areas. The administration also made an $1.2 billion investment in quantum information science. “The Trump administration started bringing national attention and federal focus to many of these technologies,” said Lindsey Sheppard, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I hope to see from the Biden administration perhaps a more cohesive guiding strategy for all of these pieces.” While the Trump administration has started many initiatives, the Council on Foreign Relations report also criticized the Trump administration's innovation strategy as an “incremental and limited approach,” writing that “action does not match the language officials use to describe the importance of AI to U.S. economic and national security.” While investment in future technology is important, defense budgets are expected to stay flat or decrease in the coming years. In her Foreign Affairs article, Flournoy acknowledge that the budgetary reality will require “tough tradeoffs.” Experts agree. “R&D programs are going to have to start being able to consistently, clearly articulate justifications for their budgets and the returns on investment,” Sheppard said. But the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the need for increased investments in research and development, Himes and Langevin argued. Both lawmakers identified biothreats as something they fear for the future. Biological threats are one area that DARPA — an organization Langevin pointed to as a major federal R&D success story — has triumphantly address. Commercial partners from DARPA's 3-year-old pandemic prevention platform program announced they developed a COVID-19 therapeutic using new techniques. “There's absolutely going to be a rethink,” Himes told C4ISRNET in an interview. “Are we correctly allocating money between the possibility that there could be a pandemic that kills a million Americans, versus the possibility that we're going to have to fight the Russians in the Fulda Gap? I think there's going be a lot of thinking about that. And there should be thinking about that because our money should go to those areas where there's the highest probability of dead Americans.” Immigration innovation Another way to improve American innovation in critical future technologies is by allowing highly skilled foreigners to work in the United States. Biden has hinted at changes that will affect American innovation through the expected reversals of President Donald Trump's immigration policies, which limited high-skilled workers from legally working in the country. The Biden administration's platform states it wants to reform the H-1B visa process that the Trump administration restricted, much to the chagrin of American tech companies, which use the program to hire top talent from abroad. Think tanks have recommended reforming the current U.S. immigration policy to attract international students, entrepreneurs and high-skilled workers because of the innovative ideas they provide. For example, an analysis by Georgetown University's Center for Security and Technology found that 68 percent of the United States' top 50 artificial intelligence companies were co-founded by immigrants, most of whom came the U.S. as students. “A lot of the Trump administration's policies — we're shooting ourselves in the foot making it so much harder for people to come here,” said Rasser, who wrote a report for CNAS last year calling for H1-B caps to be increased. “Because of the fact that people want to come to the United States to live and work, that's one of our greatest competitive advantages. It's something I expect the Biden administration to reverse.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/smr/transition/2020/11/29/how-the-biden-administration-is-expected-to-approach-tech-research-and-development/

• 

  August 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Six considerations from the Defense News Top 100 list

  By: Byron Callan As usual, the annual Defense News Top 100 rankings shed light on changes in the defense sector, while raising additional questions for all interested parties. The rankings among U.S. firms have been relatively stable, with the primary catalyst for several years worth of change being acquisitions or divestitures. The U.S. order will again change in next year's edition, when Raytheon Technologies appears as a single entity for the first time. Defense News added Chinese enterprises in 2019, and so it's good to see this extended in 2020, as China has the second largest defense budget in the world after the U.S. This year's list raises six points worth highlighting, while observing how relative rankings have changed over time. First: These lists are difficult to compile, as they depend in large part on the willingness of contractors to provide sales data. There are some omissions, which hopefully could show up in future rankings — notably, BWX Technologies, SpaceX, General Atomics, Mantech, Parsons and Kratos for the U.S.; more Japanese firms including Kawasaki Heavy Industries; Navantia of Spain and other European naval shipyards; United Aircraft in Russia; ASC Pty in Australia; and PGZ in Poland. There are other Indian firms as well that would likely qualify. Second: It is intriguing to note how long either Lockheed or its successor Lockheed Martin has been the No. 1 U.S. contractor. It's been at the top of the Defense News list since 2003, and data from annual reports show it has been the top U.S. contractor, by sales, since 1980. Size may matter in perpetuating a No. 1 position, so it is notable that the ratio of Lockheed's defense sales to the second-largest contractor has also increased over the years. For this year's list, Lockheed's defense dollars are 165 percent of Boeing's defense sales; in 1988, they were 130 percent higher than the next largest defense contractor, McDonnell Douglas. Third: As much as it's easy to categorize contractors by their home country, it bears repeating that this a global, multinational business with international sales not just from exports. A look at the Australian defense industry highlights the “multi-domestic” nature of contractors in that country. BAE Systems is listed as a U.K. company, but it derives higher annual sales from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia than from London. And in 2019, Israeli firm Elbit had more of its total sales from North America (28 percent of total) than Israel (24 percent of total). Fourth: While the rankings don't capture the changes in the composition of some of the largest contractors, this may have a bearing on competition in the 2020s. CACI and Leidos still are predominantly services contractors, but some of their recent acquisitions, most significantly the Leidos acquisition of Dynetics, are more product-centric. Fifth: Obviously the rankings only capture the top level of the global defense sector, and in assessing supply chains, resiliency, the pace of innovation and technology ingestion, a far wider net has be cast. A July 2020 report by Israel's INSS observed that Israel's defense industry, which has seen consolidation in recent years, is comprised of “about 600 companies” and employs over 45,000 workers. Much as the rankings of the top contractors are of interest, a more critical assessment of the health and agility of contractors may rest on what's happening with smaller firms. Finally: The question of state, private or public ownership is a sixth factor to weigh. State ownership of Chinese firms and partial government stakes in some of the largest European enterprises has entailed different incentives and goals — it's hard to conclude, given the nature of China's rise, that government ownership of contractors has stymied the development and production of competitive weapons systems, though there's little transparency on efficiency. In the 2020s, it remains to be seen how different and competing ownership shapes future rankings. Byron Callan is a policy research expert at Capital Alpha Partners. He specializes in the defense and aerospace industries. https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/six-considerations-from-the-defense-news-top-100-list/

• 

  August 30, 2023 | International, Aerospace

  Defense Innovation Unit embed to connect INDOPACOM to commercial tech

  A DIU official embedded in the directorate will help ensure it maintains a strong connection between technological needs and industry solutions.