Ukraine plans to ramp up monthly drone output by year-end - minister | Reuters

On the same subject

• 

  October 29, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  US Army’s top uniformed IT official lays out priorities for new office

  Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army's new top military IT official has its eyes on several priorities to ensure that the service is prepared for multi-domain operations. Lt. Gen. John Morrison, the Army's first deputy chief of staff for the G-6, a new position created after the Army announced it would be splitting its CIO/G-6 office over the summer, told reporters Tuesday that his new office will focus on strategy, network architectures, and implementation of command, control, communications, and cyber operations efforts. To achieve that, Morrison laid out four pillars that will shape the role of the new G-6 office, which reached initial operating capability after he took over in August. The four pillars are establishing a unified network, positioning cyber and signal forces for multi-domain operations, reforming the cybersecurity process, and driving efficient and effective investments across the network and cyber. The unified network pillar is focused on vertical integration of the tactical network and enterprise networks to create a unified network that can meet the globally dispersed warfighting operations of the service. Right now, Morrison said, the enterprise network is focused on modernizing bases, posts, camps and installations, while the tactical network is centered around brigade combat teams. The unified network will be “imperative” for multi-domain operations, Morrison said. His office will work with Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems; PEO Command, Control, Communications-Tactical; and the Network Cross-Functional Team to establish the unified network he said the Army needs to enable Joint All-Domain Command and Control. “We break down the individual theater architectures, and we make it easy for formations that are actually in [the contiguous United States] to rapidly deploy to any area of operations and immediately plug in and start conducting operations, whether that's in competition or conflict,” Morrison said. “That needs to be ... our goal.” As for aligning cyber and signal forces for multi-domain operations, Morrison said that he will be looking at the training, talent management and operational frameworks while adjusting them over time to ensure those soldiers are used effectively during future battles. “That means making sure that we have signal and cyber, underpinned by intelligence, operating in a combined arms fashion in cyberspace to include electromagnetic spectrum,” Morrison said. The three-star also wants to take a “hard look” at the service's risk management framework (RMF) as part of reforming and operationalizing its cybersecurity process. He wants to move the Army away from a bureaucratic system with intermittent reviews to a system where cybersecurity is baked into a system before it's added to the network, then going back “periodically” to make sure there are no new vulnerabilities to the system. As the service works toward enabling multi-domain operations, Morrison is also focused on ensuring that the service is making effective and efficient investments in its network and cyber infrastructure so that it can make the JADC2 concept a reality. For example, Morrison said, his team is looking at what the joint force is doing with cyber so the Army makes investments to develop cyber capabilities that the service needs while ensuring it has links back to the joint force. It's especially important for the Army to be meticulous with its cyber and network investments as the Department of Defense as a whole prepares for flat budgets as the government funds are increasingly directed toward recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, Morrison said. “We are probably entering into a time where budgets may not be all that they have been in the past,” he said. “And quite frankly, we owe it to taxpayers to force ourselves to be efficient and effective.” Before former Army CIO/G-6 Lt. Gen. Bruce Crawford retired, he told reporters that the Army split the CIO/G-6 office to take better advantage of technology, saying that the way his office was structured had become outdated as technology advanced. The Army has yet to nominate a new CIO, but Morrison will work closely with the next official named to that position, he said. “Think of it in this way, the CIO establishes the policies," Morrison said. "We're responsible for the planning and the actual implementation of those policies, and then supporting Army organizations worldwide as they go out and actually execute the policies.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/10/27/us-armys-top-uniformed-it-official-lays-out-priorities-for-new-office/

• 

  April 11, 2024 | International, Land

  Sea-Air-Space 2024: All the cutting-edge tech at Navy’s largest show

  From an eclipse that yanked attendees to the waterfront to a surprise appearance by Lance Cpl. Chesty XVI, here’s what you may have missed.

• 

  January 24, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  How Top Military Contractors Raytheon And BAE Systems Are Drawing Non-Traditional Suppliers Into Defense

  During the long years that U.S. forces were fighting Islamic extremists in Southwest Asia, Russia and China were investing in new warfighting technologies. Russia's hybrid military campaign against Ukraine in 2014 was a wake-up call for Washington to start paying more attention to “near-peer” threats. China's steadily increasing investment in long-range anti-ship missiles, anti-satellite weapons and cyber warfare reinforced awareness that America's military might be falling behind in the capabilities needed for winning high-end fights. These trends led the Trump Administration to produce a new national defense strategy in 2018 focused mainly on countering the military challenges posed by Moscow and Beijing. Most of that strategy's content is secret, but one element is clear enough: the Pentagon wants novel solutions to emerging near-peer threats, and it wants them fast. Policymakers in both the Obama and Trump administrations have repeatedly stated non-traditional military suppliers are a vital part of the Pentagon's effort to get ahead of overseas rivals and stay there. “Non-traditional” has a specific legal definition in defense acquisition policy that potentially allows suppliers to bypass burdensome regulations when offering commercial products from outside traditional military channels. In more common-sense usage, non-traditional simply means any company capable of offering the military a better mousetrap that doesn't usually do business with the five-sided building. That includes a majority of tech companies in places like Austin, Boston and Silicon Valley, especially startups with cutting-edge ideas. It may also include larger industrial companies like General Motors that are re-entering the military market after a long absence. The challenge facing policymakers is how to leverage the skills and intellectual property of these non-traditional players without suffocating them under a blanket of bureaucratic requirements that contribute little to finding novel solutions. One way to tap the dynamism of commercial enterprises is to partner them with longtime military contractors who can assume most of the burden for negotiating the bureaucratic landscape. Here is how two companies, Raytheon and BAE Systems, have stepped up to the challenge. Raytheon. Massachusetts-based Raytheon has been a major military contractor since it pioneered radar during World War Two. It is in the process of merging with United Technologies, an aerospace conglomerate that has long managed to operate successfully in military and commercial markets (both companies contribute to my think tank). Raytheon executives say the pace of change and the expectations of military customers have changed radically in recent years. It is not uncommon for military customers to seek new ways of sensing, processing or communicating that must be delivered within months rather than years. This emerging dynamic has led the company to rethink who it partners with in producing such solutions, and how to interact with them. Raytheon has a cultural affinity for diversity, which may help it to think outside the box about who its partners should be. Although not all of the non-traditional suppliers with whom it teams are Silicon Valley startups, a majority have not previously offered defense products as part of their portfolios. The role the company has fashioned for itself in partnering with such enterprises is to act as a translator between the fluid world of commercial innovation and the rule-based environment of military acquisition. Raytheon has always been driven by its engineering culture, so the company knows how to identify promising technologies that can be assimilated into cutting-edge combat systems. But it also knows the ins and outs of a baroque acquisition system that outsiders frequently find impenetrable. Raytheon seeks to leverage the energy of non-traditional sources while remaining in compliance with relevant government standards. For instance, there needs to be effective communication between the company and commercial sources, but the ability of the partner to observe the intricacies of sensitive projects must be tightly constrained. The tension of being a valued supplier but not accustomed to working in a classified environment must be managed. Non-traditional partners provide Raytheon with base technologies that potentially enable unique military capabilities, and they often can generate novel solutions to technical challenges quickly, thanks to their entrepreneurial cultures. Raytheon configures and integrates these inputs for military customers while translating the needs of those customers into terms the non-traditional supplier can understand. BAE Systems. The military electronics unit of another major defense contractor, BAE Systems, Inc., is headquartered across the border from Raytheon's home state in Nashua, New Hampshire. BAE concentrates on many of the same technologies Raytheon does such as sensors, signal processing and secure communications—which isn't surprising, since the core of its electronics operation was founded after World War Two by former Raytheon employees. BAE is a consulting client, which has given me some insight into how the company views non-traditional suppliers. In addition to pursuing partnering initiatives such as those at Raytheon, BAE Systems has fashioned an internal mechanism for leveraging the technology of entrepreneurial startups by helping them to finance their businesses. That mechanism is called FAST Labs, and as the name implies it was conceived to help generate novel solutions to military challenges quickly. Beyond determining whether the company should manufacture key technology inputs internally or go outside, FAST Labs continuously scouts for promising innovations that are emerging from U.S. startups. When it finds ideas with high potential, it seeks to build trusted partnerships with the enterprises, venture capital investors, universities and government agencies aimed at speeding the pace of innovation. For example, BAE has sponsored technology accelerators at places like MIT. Most of the startups FAST Labs assists are commercial companies with “dual-use” technologies potentially applicable to military purposes. Although the company has a significant commercial electronics business, the focus of FAST Labs is mainly on meeting the demands of military customers. It takes its cues as to what might be most worthy of support from agencies like the Air Force Research Lab and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. FAST Labs seems to be a unique business model within the U.S. defense sector. Because the electronics technologies on which the Nashua operation concentrates are fungible across diverse markets, BAE Systems has benchmarked FAST Labs against renowned commercial R&D centers such as the old Bell Labs. It is an unusual approach to military innovation, but like executives at Raytheon, BAE execs say the usual approach to developing warfighting systems just doesn't cut it anymore with their Pentagon customer. https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/01/24/how-top-military-contractors-raytheon-and-bae-systems-are-drawing-non-traditional-suppliers-into-defense/amp/