The case for a robust defense budget

On the same subject

• 

  May 19, 2020 | International, Naval

  German shipyard shuffle clears path for MKS 180 warship program to proceed

  By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — An agreement by two German shipyards to merge has dislodged a major legal roadblock in the multibillion-dollar program to build the Navy's MKS 180 large frigate-type warships. The Defence Ministry's confirmation on Friday that German Naval Yards Kiel had dropped its protest against Dutch shipbuilder Damen, who was announced as the winner of the contract in January, was the final building block in a turbulent week for the European naval industry. Days prior, the German shipbuilder said it would merge with Bremen-based Lürssen, giving the latter company the lead in building surface combatants together. Lürssen, for its part, is already part of the MKS 180 team as a subcontractor to Damen, and the Dutch said they would lean heavily on their German partner in building four initial vessels under the program. Earlier this year, German Naval Yards Kiel lamented an unfair evaluation of its MKS 180 bid by the Defence Ministry, announcing it was prepared for a potentially lengthy legal battle. But just as litigious as the company sounded in its public proclamations, industry insiders said there appeared to be a willingness early on by all companies to come to an agreement outside of duking it out in court. Damen, meanwhile, is expected to rethink the distribution of its MKS 180 workshare plan now that the former competitor is also onboard, albeit only by extension. Considerations to that effect would be a “logical next step,” one company official said. “We are pleased with the consolidation of the German shipping industry under the leadership of the Bremer Lürssen Group,” a Damen statement read. “We look forward to intensive cooperation in the future. As Damen, we see this consolidation as a positive development.” The company also believes the merger would “increase the chance of equal cooperation between Northern European countries in the field of naval construction — a development that we can only applaud in an otherwise unevenly distributed European playing field.” That leaves the question of what will happen with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, another losing bidder in the MKS 180 race. The company previously reported to be part of the German consolidation talks, leading to reports that a single, national shipbuilding “champion” was in the works. For now, however, TKMS is still weighing its options, as Reuters reported this week. In one scenario, the shipbuilder could merge with Italy's Fincantieri, with talks ongoing to that effect, according to the news service. It is also possible TKMS could join the other two German yards at a later time. Whatever happens next, it appears a broader move toward naval-industry consolidation may be gaining steam in the wake of the Lürssen-GNY Kiel deal, according to experts. “The cards are reshuffled,” said Sebastian Bruns, a naval analyst with the University of Kiel in northern Germany. “The consolidation is a significant step forward — and potentially not the final evolution in the Central European warship sector yet.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/15/german-shipyard-shuffle-clears-path-for-mks-180-warship-program-to-proceed/

• 

  March 18, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

  The Pentagon is handling cyber vulnerabilities inconsistently

  Mark Pomerleau The Department of Defense has not consistently mitigated cyber vulnerabilities identified in a 2012 report, according to the department's inspector general. The DoD IG issued a follow-on report to its 2012 report, issued March 13 and made public March 17, that determined cyber red teams didn't report the results of assessments to organizations and components didn't effectively correct or mitigate the identified vulnerabilities. The new report discovered that components didn't consistently mitigate or include unmitigated vulnerabilities identified in the prior audit and during this audit by red teams during combatant command exercises, operational testing assessments and agency-specific assessments in plans of action and milestones. “Ensuring DoD Components mitigate vulnerabilities is essential to achieve a better return on investment,” the report stated. “In addition, we determined that the DoD did not establish a unified approach to support and prioritize DoD Cyber Red Team missions. Instead, the DoD Components implemented Component-specific approaches to staff, train and develop tools for DoD Cyber Red Teams, and prioritize DoD Cyber Red Team missions.” The report found that DoD didn't establish a unified approach because it didn't assign an organization with responsibility to oversee and synchronize red team activity based on priorities, it didn't assess the resources needed for each red team and identify requirements to train them to meet priorities and it didn't develop baseline tools to perform assessments. “Without an enterprisewide solution to staff, train and develop tools for DoD Cyber Red Teams and prioritize their missions, DoD Cyber Red Teams have not met current mission requests and will not meet future requests because of the increased demands for DoD Cyber Red Team services,” the report said. “Until the DoD assigns an organization to assess DoD Cyber Red Team resources, it will be unable to determine the number of DoD Cyber Red Teams and staffing of each team to support mission needs, which will impact the Do D's ability to identify vulnerabilities and take corrective actions that limit malicious actors from compromising DoD operations.” The DoD IG issued seven recommendations the secretary of defense assign an organization responsibility for. They include: Review and assess red team reports for systemic vulnerabilities and coordinate the development and implementation of enterprise solutions to mitigate them; Ensure components develop and implement a risk-based process to assess the impact of identified vulnerabilities and prioritize funding for corrective actions for high-risk vulnerabilities; Ensure components develop and implement processes for providing reports with red team findings and recommendations to organizations with responsibility for corrective actions; Develop processes and procedures to oversee red team activities, including synchronizing and prioritizing red team missions, to ensure activities align with priorities; Perform a joint DoD-wide mission-impact analysis to determine the number of red teams, minimum staffing levels of each team, the composition of the staffing levels needed to meet current and future mission requests; Assess and identify a baseline of core and specialized training standards, based on the three red team roles that team staff must meet for the team to be certified and accredited; and Identify and develop baseline tools needed by red teams to perform missions. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2020/03/17/the-pentagon-is-handling-cyber-vulnerabilities-inconsistently/

• 

  November 7, 2023 | International, Land

  Rheinmetall Defence Australia seeks industry partners for Royal Australian Navy’s Multi Ammunition Softkill System (MASS)

  Following extensive trials, MASS was selected on account of its unique capabilities.