Trump promises to launch Space National Guard if elected

On the same subject

• 

  November 5, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Here’s how the Pentagon will test industry’s counter-drone tech for an enduring capability

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Beginning early next year, the Pentagon will host the first opportunity for industry to demonstrate counter-drone technology aimed at small systems, the next step in a plan to test out new capabilities twice a year at common test ranges, according to Army officials in charge of the effort. Pentagon leaders approved in late September a set of requirements to help counter small drones, laying a path for how industry can develop technology to plug into a single command-and-control system. The Joint Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, or JCO, kicked off the pursuit with an industry open house Oct. 30. The defense secretary delegated the Army in November 2019 to lead the effort to consolidate the wide range of counter-small unmanned aerial system, or C-sUAS, capabilities into a select group of interim systems. Those systems have now been chosen, with the JCO turning its sights toward establishing an enduring collection of capabilities — while acknowledging that there's no silver bullet and that a layered approach is needed, using both kinetic and non-kinetic means, to defeat small drones. The JCO has identified three sites for common test ranges to conduct evaluation and testing of promising counter-drone technology, according to Col. Greg Soule, resources director for the Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office. The RCCTO is supporting the JCO by helping identify material solutions for C-sUAS, and it is leveraging its work on directed-energy and high-power microwave technologies to roll into a solution. A decision memo on locations is awaiting approval by Army Vice Chief Gen. Joseph Martin. Soule said those locations will be shared “when the time is right.” The JCO also set up a working group to look into testing C-sUAS capabilities in an urban environment, according to Soule. To ensure the JCO is comparing apples to apples when it comes to counter-drone technology, it also stood up a working group with representatives across all the armed services to establish joint test protocols. That protocol is out for signature and should be in hand by Nov. 6. Additionally, Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, has asked the JCO to look at the feasibility of establishing a single source for training targets “to help reduce costs, reduce lead times and streamline the waiver process,” Soule said. “All services already have sources for where they go now. So potentially we could find a way to find some synergies and efficiencies.” Industry interest Industry is eager to get technology in front of both the JCO and RCCTO. Many defense companies participating in the Association of the U.S. Army's annual virtual conference last month highlighted counter-drone capability. General Dynamics Mission Systems featured its recent partnership with Dedrone, a leader in drone detection and defeat technologies using machine-learning software, sensors and electronic attack methods. Lockheed Martin showcased its MoRFIUS C-sUAS capability that it is working on with the RCCTO. MoRFIUS uses high-power microwave technology in an aerial platform. That capability can be used to extend the range beyond current counter-drone defeat systems to defeat drone swarms. MoRFIUS is a recoverable and reusable technology. Leonardo DRS also highlighted its mobile counter-drone capability using Moog's Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform turret with multiple kinetic effectors, different electro-magnetic and infrared sensors, an onboard radar, and electronic warfare technologies. Raytheon, which has a foothold in the C-sUAS market with its Coyote Block II kinetic effector and its Ku-Band Radio Frequency System, emphasized its track record and upgrades to the system. The industry open house had roughly 500 industry representatives tune in. The JCO will select industry applicants to show off their capabilities at the first demo, which is to take place in the second quarter of fiscal 2021. At the demonstration, the JCO will provide instrumentation and threat surrogates as well command-and-control elements. Industry participants will need to bring technology to defeat drones, said Adam Martin, who briefed industry on test ranges and protocols at the open house. There will be technology insertion points in the enduring architecture after each demonstration that address gaps, he added. https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2020/11/04/heres-how-the-pentagon-will-test-industrys-counter-drone-tech-for-an-enduring-capability/

• 

  April 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - April 20, 2020

  ARMY Shimmick Construction Co., Oakland, California, was awarded a $116,429,893 modification (P00012) to contract W912EK-19-C-0002 for rehabilitation of the LaGrange Lock and Dam. Work will be performed in Versailles, Illinois, with an estimated completion date of July 21, 2021. Fiscal 2020 civil construction funds in the amount of $116,429,893 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity. Luhr Bros. Inc., Columbia, Illinois, was awarded a $45,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for lease of dredge attendant plant and on-shore disposal of equipment for channel maintenance on the Ohio River. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky, is the contracting activity (W912QR-20-D-0011). Khotol Services Corp.,* Galena, Alaska, was awarded a $12,000,000 modification (P00004) to contract W911SA-17-D-2000 for sustainment, modernization and improvement projects for the 88th Army Reserve Centers. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of April 30, 2020. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE Honeywell Inc., Clearwater, Florida, has been awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price contract for engineering, manufacturing and development of the Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System Modernization (EGI-M). Work will be performed in Clearwater, Florida, and is expected to be completed by April 19, 2024. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition and only one offer was received. The estimated total value of this contract is $99,146,127. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $20,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Position, Navigation & Timing Contracting Branch, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity (FA8576-20-C-0001). NAVY Timken Gears and Services Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, is awarded a $76,187,806 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract N00024-16-C-4202 to exercise options for main reduction gear shipsets for DDG-51 (Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers). Work will be performed in Santa Fe Springs, California (76%); Riverside, Missouri (9%); Latrobe, Pennsylvania (2%); Fitchburg, Massachusetts (2%); Erie, Pennsylvania (2%); New Castle, Delaware (1%); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1%); St. Augustine, Florida (1%); and other locations below one percent (6%). The main reduction gears transmit the power from two main propulsion gas turbines to the propulsion shaft. Each DDG 51-class destroyer has two gear assemblies, one for each propulsion shaft. The DDG 51-class guided-missile destroyer is a multi-mission surface combatant with 67 delivered ships, and 21 more are currently under contract. Work is expected to be complete by November 2023. Fiscal 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $76,187,806 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems, Nashua, New Hampshire, is awarded a $17,381,169 modification (P00001) to previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract N00019-20-C-0042. This modification procures the necessary hardware, technical engineering, management and logistics support to fabricate, assemble, test and deliver three T-1622/ALE-55(V) fiber optic towed decoys for a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customer and 102 electronic frequency converters for the Navy. Work will be performed in Nashua, New Hampshire (48%); Chelmsford, United Kingdom (12%); Mountain View, California (6%); Rochester, New York (4%); San Diego, California (4%); Landenberg, Pennsylvania (3%); Hamilton, New Jersey (2%); Commerce, California (2%); Los Osos, California (2%); Toledo, Ohio (1%); and various locations within the continental U.S. (16%). Work is expected to be complete by March 2022. Fiscal 2020 procurement of ammunition (Navy and Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $13,088,010; fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $4,027,080; and FMS funds in the amount of $266,079 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Hi-Q Engineering Inc.,* Poway, California, is awarded a $17,315,857 ceiling increase modification to previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract N65236-17-D-8006 for engineering, test and evaluation, logistics and technical services for fixed very low frequency/low frequency broadcast transmitter stations. Work will be performed in Dallas, Texas (35%); Poway, California (30%); Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (15%); Charleston, South Carolina (10%); and Norfolk, Virginia (10%), and is expected to be complete by May 2022. This modification brings the total cumulative value of the contract to $55,972,607. No funds are obligated at the award of this modification. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy); fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy); fiscal 2021 other procurement (Navy); fiscal 2021 operations and maintenance (Navy); fiscal 2022 other procurement (Navy); and fiscal 2022 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $17,315,857 will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic, Charleston, South Carolina, is the contracting activity. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Pascagoula, Mississippi, is awarded a $7,142,318 fixed-price incentive (firm target) modification to previously awarded contract N00024-13-C-2307 to exercise an option for the accomplishment of post-delivery availability (PDA) work items for DDG-121. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Immediately following the preliminary acceptance of the vessel, Huntington Ingalls Industries will complete the efforts required for PDA work items in the contractor's yard. The modification for PDA work items will be accomplished before the vessel departs and sails away from the contractor's shipyard. Work is expected to be complete by February 2021. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); and fiscal 2020 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $7,142,318 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY American Water Operations and Maintenance LLC, Camden, New Jersey, has been awarded a $12,581,850 modification (P00037) to a 50-year utilities privatization contract (SP0600-15-C-8302) with no option periods to incorporating an increase to the operations, maintenance, renewal and replacement charges for water and wastewater utility service systems. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract. Location of performance is California, with a May 31, 2066, performance completion date. Using military service is Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2157205/source/GovDelivery/

• 

  December 14, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  NATO defense investment official talks European security and artificial intelligence

  By: Sebastian Sprenger BERLIN — As the European Union positions itself to become a defense force in its own right, some in Washington have wondered if such moves would weaken NATO as the dominant trans-Atlantic security pact. Alliance leaders, including Camille Grand, who serves as NATO's assistant secretary general for defense investment, have defended EU efforts, arguing something good will come out of it if both organizations manage to cooperate. Grand sat down with Defense News Europe Editor Sebastian Sprenger during the NATO-Industry Forum in Berlin in November to discuss the state of play between the EU and NATO, defense spending by allies, and new technologies on the horizon. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said the alliance can benefit from the European Union's newfound interest in all things defense. How so? It can be fruitful for both organizations as long as we work well together. Of course it is good news to see the European Union as a more active player in the field of defense, provided that we operate in an environment where we avoid competing guidance to the member states and the allies, especially those who are members of both organizations, and provided that the EU effort strengthens trans-Atlantic security by enabling the European allies to acquire capabilities earlier or faster or in a more efficient way. Outlook 2019: World leaders and analysts speak on the state of global security and the defense industry We have a number of areas of cooperation between the EU and NATO, including in the field of capability development. Could things be better? Yes, probably, for example in terms of interaction between both organizations and fostering transparency, access to relevant documents, and so forth. Ultimately, I think the issue is whether the European effort can be a good contribution to a broader burden-sharing effort. But I think we also have to keep in mind that the effort in the field of defense remains primarily with nations. There is still a sizable trans-Atlantic imbalance as it pertains to the size of the defense-industrial base. Is that detrimental in the long run? The situation is relatively well-known. The defense market in North America, and especially in the United States, is larger than in Europe. There is an imbalance in defense spending; that's the whole point about the defense investment pledge, to partially correct that and having European members invest more in defense. Beyond that, the consolidation of defense industries took place in the United States earlier. In Europe it is still a process that is underway. There are still many companies competing for all sorts of markets. We have a fragmented demand and a fragmented supply, if you will. The issue is not to end up with a single company in Europe or in the U.S.; I think competition is healthy. The issue is: Can we tackle the issue of fragmentation in a European market? As seen from NATO, we don't really do industrial policy, per se. That's really a European Commission perspective. If it enables Europeans to be more efficient in delivering the capabilities we all need in the alliance, that can be good news. What do you expect to come out of industry consolidation in Europe? First of all, I think it has to be a business-driven process, primarily. It's not for organizations such as the EU or NATO to decide. I think what is true is that we see repeatedly cases of where there are a very large number of types of equipment in the same category available. There are a number of medium and small players in Europe that are part of the defense equation, and the defense industry is something where states look carefully at preserving some national capacity. The issue is: Should that organization evolve over time into a slightly more consolidated market? For me, the key criteria is to promote opportunities for multinational cooperations, which is something that we do both at NATO and the EU. It's very important that allies who are EU member states, when they are in a position to do so, decide to go for multinational solutions — with or without a single industrial champion. The European NATO members have pledge to spend more on defense. How does that manifest itself from where you sit? First of all, they are indeed spending more on defense. The increase in defense spending for this year is expected to be more than 5 percent for Europe and Canada. It's a complete overturn from the previous 25 years. We are now in the fourth year in a row of increasing defense spending. This is starting to make a real difference. In the last couple of years, Europe and Canada have spent €36 billion (U.S. $27 billion) more on defense than they had done previously. This starts being real money. It enables us to do three things: First of all, to fill some of the very serious gaps that we have — whether in ammunition or spare parts, for example. Secondly, to reinvest in building up capabilities for identified shortfalls, for example air-to-air refueling, anti-submarine warfare, all sorts of domains. Thirdly, to invest in defense for innovation. For example, take a deeper look at disruptive technologies, 21st century technologies. From where I sit, I can see two things. First of all, the NATO defense-planning targets have been apportioned by all allies. It's the first time in history that all allies have agreed to deliver what they are being asked. Secondly, all allies have agreed to keep increasing their defense spending. We might see nuances in terms of when they intend to reach 2 percent of GDP, which has partly to do with the politics in each country. But I think the political commitment is very strong and was strengthened by the Brussels summit in many ways. There is more money coming, and that creates more opportunities not only for new capabilities but also more cooperation. I think altogether, we have a dynamic that is very positive. Ultimately it makes a difference. People were always pointing at the fact that the Russian Federation had tripled its defense budget over the previous decade. Without trying to match that in any shape or form into an arms race, we also have seen now that reinvesting massively in defense, as the Russian Federation has done, has given Moscow more ability to act in the Middle East, to modernize its conventional and nuclear forces, and so on and so forth. The notion that investing in defense doesn't make a difference is wrong. What are the top three of four areas that need more investment for NATO? One that we are focusing on is the joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance domain. This is something where modern warfare requires us to have an edge. Then also I would emphasize mobility, both tactical and strategic. All of our missions require the alliance to be very mobile and be able to forward-deploy quite quickly. I would also cite integrated air and missile defense as a domain of focus. And lastly, the maritime domain, especially anti-submarine warfare. But those are only examples. We are in the process of designing NATO for the 21st century, which needs to be more agile and regain a degree of robustness that we didn't necessarily anticipate 10 years ago when we were working on the assumption that the primary objective of NATO would be to have light, deployable forces to go out of area. I could have mentioned cyber, of course, as a priority. I didn't mention it because while it is obviously a major, major domain for building our capabilities on, it is probably not as cash-intensive as others. The Germans seems to be perpetually moving toward 2 percent of GDP on defense, as opposed to saying when they will reach it. Is that enough? Is the GDP-percentage metric suitable for defense contributions? First of all, Germany has turned a corner on defense spending. I would note that Germany has a commitment to move to 1.5 percent, which is significant. Is this enough? Probably not. And Germany should meet its political commitment like other allies and aim towards moving as quickly as possible to the 2 percent objective. Having said this, 2 percent is a figure that is quite reasonable. The Cold War figure for Germany was more in the 3 percent realm. The notion that 2 percent would be a massive and disruptive number doesn't seem to me quite convincing. The second argument that I sometimes hear in the wealthy European countries is that 2 percent when you're rich is much more difficult to achieve. I could exactly reverse that argument, saying 2 percent when you're poor is much more difficult to achieve because then you're competing with much more immediate, existential needs in terms of infrastructure, education and so on. From that perspective, the good news with the 2 percent concept is that the burden is the same for everyone. Of course, with Germany being the largest economy in Europe, a lot of effort tends to be indeed with Germany. Germany already has demonstrated a willingness to move significantly in this direction, and there are high expectations that it will continue down that route and meet the target. I honestly think it's both doable and manageable. But then, of course, that doesn't happen overnight. Are NATO and the EU on the same page when it comes to modernizing the members' combat aircraft fleets, especially in Europe? I wouldn't say there is a NATO-EU competition or disagreement over that because, first of all, NATO doesn't take sides in terms of choosing equipment. NATO identified the need to modernize and keep an effective air force. And then each ally can decided which way they want to go. Some of them, quite a number now, have decided to go for the F-35 solution. On the other hand, other allies have either recently acquired planes that are quite modern — whether it's the Eurofighter or the Rafale — or are projecting to build together — as the French and the Germans [are] — the next generation of aircraft. Britain is also contemplating its own. From a NATO perspective, I think it's fair to say that we recognize every ally's right to pursue what they think is the best approach to address a capability challenge. The European Union is pursuing a slightly different perspective because the EU does have a dimension in terms of industrial policy and research policy where they can see benefits in supporting technological development in Europe. The United States, Russia and China are spending significant amounts of money on artificial intelligence research and development. Where does NATO as a whole stand on investments in this area? We have to look very seriously, as NATO allies, at the latest generation of disruptive technologies. And artificial intelligence is one of them. There is a major challenge coming from other major powers, starting with China. The United States is already well into it, Europe is starting to do that. I would nevertheless put AI in the broader context of new and disruptive technologies because I think it's one of them. And AI can also probably bring a lot to our intelligence efforts. But I would put it in the broader context of all sorts of technology revolutions underway. And maybe sometimes we over-focus on AI only, as if it was the single game changer. Nobody has fully assessed how much it's going to change the way we do military operations. Is AI going to be a tool to assist in decisions, or is AI going to allow for more autonomous systems to operate? On this, we've been working very, very hard, including with Allied Command Transformation. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/nato-defense-investment-official-talks-european-security-and-artificial-intelligence