USAF To Equip KC-135s For ADS-B Position Reporting

On the same subject

• 

  December 19, 2018 | International, C4ISR

  CENTCOM chief: The future of warfare demands more cyber authorities

  By: Justin Lynch The Pentagon has received more power to conduct cyber operations in the past 18 months. But for the top Army commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, the new authority is not enough. The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, wrote in a Dec. 18 paper that the Pentagon must “normalize” electronic warfare and cyberattacks and incorporate them into daily operations. “Normalizing the cyberspace domain means broader authorities that are more responsive than current bureaucratic processes,” Votel wrote in the Army's Cyber Defense Review. “It also means we need simple and streamlined organizations and processes to increase lethality and enhance performance.” The paper was coauthored by Votel, Maj. Gen. Julazadeh and Maj. Weilun Lin. “Our failure to operationalize and normalize the cyberspace domain effectively cedes it to our adversaries, gives them a competitive advantage and, ultimately, creates an increased attack vector against our objectives,” the authors said. President Trump gave the Pentagon new authorities to conduct cyber operations in August and minimized the process where other agencies can object to cyberattacks, known as “deconfliction.” Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis can conduct hacking operations without approval from the White House so long as they do not interfere with the American “national interest,” according to four current and former White House and intelligence officials who were either part of internal deliberations or briefed on the changes. Yet some current and former U.S. officials are skeptical that the new authorities will mean more effective hacking operations for the Pentagon, because it does not solve the nuances of cyberattacks. But the new mandates do not go far enough for the three officer authors, who argued that cyberwarfare should be under the same authorities as other types of operations. “We must not see cyberspace as drastically different and separate from other domains that we create new processes to prepare, plan and fight in this new domain. We continue to seek processes that smooth and simplify operations, reducing friendly friction and accelerating decision-making.” Current and former Pentagon officials have pointed to conducting cyberattacks against enemies that use networks of neutral or partner nations as an area where the Pentagon has changed its decision-making process in recent years. Those officials also pointed to how the Pentagon was able to use hybrid warfare tactics during the 2016 liberation of Mosul, Iraq, as a textbook example of future hybrid operations. Votel, Julazadeh and Lin echoed the sentiment of other Pentagon officials who have advocated for cyberattacks, electronic warfare and other information operations to be integrated earlier in military operations. “We need to proactively execute cyberspace and information operations early in 'Phase 0 / steady state' of the planning process — well before operation execution. Only then can we shape the [information environment], hold our adversaries' capabilities at risk and execute at the speed of war,” the three wrote. For example, Pentagon officials say they closely monitored Russia's 2014 hybrid war in Ukraine and learned from Moscow's tactics. Votel, Julazadeh and Lin shed light on the changes, writing that information operations were previously “integrated as an afterthought.” Yet over the last two years, Central Command has incorporated cyberattacks, electronic warfare and military deception at the “strategic level.” And this hybrid warfare has driven new acquisition demands in the Pentagon. “We need technology and capabilities to keep pace with the operational environment and continue to build the partnerships to do so,” the three officers wrote. In recent years, Central Command has bolstered its hybrid warfare through new contracts. The centerpiece of that effort is a July 2017 contract worth $621 million to Science Applications International Corporation for IT support to Central Command that could last seven years. In August 2018, Vistra communications was also awarded a $22 million contract to support offensive and defensive cyber operations for Central Command. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2018/12/18/centcom-chief-the-future-of-warfare-demands-more-cyber-authorities

• 

  July 29, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Airbus Calls For Europe To Strengthen Defense Budgets Post-COVID-19

  Tony Osborne July 10, 2020 While Airbus' commercial business faces strong headwinds from the novel coronavirus pandemic, the company's military capability is still very much in demand. But can Europe's big defense initiatives—many of which involve Airbus-—be sustained with burdened budgets post-COVID-19? London Bureau Chief Tony Osborne put those questions to Airbus Defense and Space CEO Dirk Hoke. AW&ST: What does the defense environment look like post-COVID-19? Will we face more spending cuts, or will spending plans be maintained? And are you confident big defense programs can survive? A health and economic crisis doesn't erase the necessity of being able to defend your territory. NATO missions are continuing, and the extensive use of our A400Ms and [A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transports] MRTTs during the COVID-19 crisis is a perfect example of how much value military assets can bring in humanitarian missions, when nations are in need. In addition, spending in defense procurement, if you do it right, is always an investment in your own economy and therefore now twice as important. The defense business was undertaking some restructuring and cost cutting at the beginning of 2020 after a difficult 2019. Where are those plans; will they have to be reconsidered? We have had to slightly adapt our restructuring due to the COVID-19 impact, but the rationale stays the same. In our defense business, many important contracts had been postponed or came later than expected, which has of course had an impact on operational planning. In our space business, we currently see an extremely flat market for telecommunication satellites. We are [the] market leader and confident that the situation will change again. But for the time being we must take the appropriate measures. How has COVID-19 affected production and output in the various countries, and how have you overcome or are overcoming those hurdles? I would say we were early adapters. Given the experience we had at our commercial sites in China, on which we could build, it took us around a week to clear all production facilities for working under COVID-19 work restrictions. On the defense side, we also delivered aircraft in the lockdown phase and provided our services to the military crews on mission. It was, rather, the space part, where we had to reschedule satellite launches due to the temporary closure of the launch site in Kourou [in French Guiana]. And for the desk jobs, many were working from home during the lockdowns in order to avoid [having] too many meetings at the offices at the same time. They are now coming back to their desks. We could demonstrate that also in crisis times we are a trustful partner for our customers. Airbus proposed a compromise deal for the Eurofighter following Germany's decision on a Tornado replacement. Is Berlin showing interest in your proposals; could we see some of these Eurofighters on contract soon? Let me state that we are very proud of being part of the Eurofighter family. There are some good opportunities ahead. Recently we signed the contract for equipping 115 [German and Spanish] Eurofighters with brand-new Captor-E radars. In the autumn, we are confident [we will] sign a contract for 38 Eurofighters to replace the German Tranche 1 fleet. Additionally, we are in discussions for planning a Tranche 5 [implementation of] the Long-Term Evolution Program. What the final decision on Tornado will be, we will see only after the elections in Germany [at the] end of 2021. In the meantime, there are further opportunities in Spain, Switzerland and Finland. The Eurofighter clearly is the backbone of European air defense. What progress is being made on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS)? Can you talk about some of the technological hurdles, where there needs to be or has been progress to reach the next phase? There is a tremendous drive in the project. All parties, on both the political and industrial sides, are pushing for progress and can be proud of what has been achieved in less than three years after being mentioned the first time in the French-German declaration on July 13, 2017. We need to keep this spirit up to achieve our ambitious timelines. In terms of technologies, we are at the early stage of a long journey. Overall, we are looking into a wide range of technologies in the areas of combat aircraft capabilities, digitalization and data analysis, as well as connectivity and communication. Airbus is the only company in Europe that has extensive know-how in all three areas. Nevertheless, as we are talking about requirements needed in 2040, we are far away from having definite answers yet. The FCAS is very much an incremental journey with an open end—that's what makes the program so challenging, but also so exciting. You made representations to Madrid regarding the involvement with Indra on the FCAS. Is there any sign of that changing? Is there a point when you begin working together and sideline the differences? Spain is a very welcome partner in the FCAS program and is one of our Airbus home nations. I really believe that the FCAS project is large enough for the whole European defense industry. To make it a success, it is important that everybody contributes where he has the largest experience. In terms of system integration, it is undoubtedly Airbus—especially in Spain, where we have a large industrial footprint, are producing the Eurofighter, A400M, tankers and the light and medium transport aircraft. I think it is understandable that we expressed our incomprehension to the Spanish government. Are you any closer to securing a contract for the Eurodrone development? Are you concerned that France could still be swayed down the U.S. route? In June we handed over our best and final offer and are expecting a decision by the nations after the summer break. Germany, France, Spain and Italy worked with us on the capabilities from the onset, so the complete design is according to their wishes. Therefore, in terms of performance, capability and European sovereignty there is no serious competitor on the market. What is clear is, the later the order comes, the more the delivery dates are slipping. I don't think that's in anybody's interest. Are you making any proposals for Germany's Pegasus signals--intelligence (sigint) platform since Berlin withdrew from using Triton? Will you offer the Integrated Standby Instrument Systems (ISIS) system on a manned platform? That's now in the hands of the German government. Over the years of the project we developed many skills and capabilities in Germany that are required in any sigint platform. That applies especially for the ground control station, which we also deliver for NATO's [Alliance Ground Surveillance] project. Therefore, we stand ready [for] implementing our know-how once the decision has been taken. Nonetheless, I am still convinced that Triton would have been the most capable platform for the envisaged missions. On MRTT, where do you see the next market for that platform? How many more orders could come from the European Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet/Unit (MMF/MMU)? Is the agreement with Lockheed on MRTT making progress on marketing for U.S. needs? What is your hope for that? Only weeks ago, we delivered the first MRTT to the joint NATO fleet. I don't want to speculate about numbers, but pooling resources as is already the case with military transport capacities is a blueprint for the future. The U.S. surely is the largest accessible market for military tankers. We have the best aircraft in this class. And besides our own Airbus footprint, we have Lockheed Martin as an equal partner in the country. We stand ready. In the end the question will be whether the U.S. is ready for this, too. Regarding A400M tactical capabilities and exports, any progress on both? The A400M has meanwhile proven to be a real workhorse in the services, and flight testing again has made good progress in recent months. Simultaneous paratrooper jumps out of the side doors are now certified, and the helicopter air-to-air refueling is advancing well. The aircraft is simply best-in-class. Other nations recognize this very well, but it is currently a difficult environment to predict when the next exports are coming in. Given that space has been declared a warfighting domain by several nations, are you seeing an uptake in defense interest in space, or is that something still warming? When we see how dependent mankind is on assets in space, it is high time to act and find ways to protect them. Some countries are making progress already. Others are still undecided on their strategy. As Europe's largest space company, we can make suggestions. But what is valid for the world applies also in space: You can't defend space or your assets there as a single country. What we need is a common approach. And it is needed sooner rather than later. https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/airbus-calls-europe-strengthen-defense-budgets-post-covid-19

• 

  March 8, 2022 | International, Land

  BAE Systems buys military simulations firm for $200 million

  In the statement, BAE Systems said it expects the global market for military training and simulations environments to eventually surpass $11 billion annually.