News

By: Chiara Vercellone WASHINGTON — In its quest to modernize the U.S. Air Force's stockpile of intercontinental ballistic missiles, Northrop Grumman has partnered with Bechtel and Kratos Defense and Security Solutions, the company announced Tuesday. The two companies are the latest addition to Northrop Grumman's nationwide team devoted to replace the Minuteman III with next-generation missiles, as the company announced in September its collaboration with hundreds of companies across the defense, construction and engineering industries. “Together, this expanded team has the capacity, capability and credentials needed to deliver – on time – a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear deterrent capability for the U.S. and its allies for the next 50 years,” said Greg Manuel, vice president of Northrop Grumman's Ground Based Strategic Deterrent team. Bechtel, an engineering, construction and project management company, will provide construction and integration, and launch system design, according to the announcement. Kratos Defense and Security Solutions, which specializes in unmanned systems and missile defense, will provide vehicle transporters. Northrop Grumman is the de facto winner of the $85 billion contract, expected to be awarded in the fourth quarter of 2020, after Boeing declined to bid on the program by the Dec. 13 deadline. Boeing claimed Northrop Grumman had an advantage to offer the lowest-cost system, thanks in part to its acquisition of one of only two U.S. solid-fuel rocket motor manufacturers. Boeing proposed, unsuccessfully, that the Air Force demand a joint team be formed between the two companies. The Air Force said it will proceed with “an aggressive and effective sole-source negotiation,” according to a statement released in December. Members of Congress have expressed concern over a sole-source contract. House Armed Services Committee Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., suggested the Air Force has shown bias toward Northrop Grumman and questioned the need for the program. “It is very troubling that it's going to be a sole source contract,” Smith said at an event sponsored by Ploughshares Fund in October. “The thing to do would be to address the concerns that Boeing raised about the procurement process. Because, if Boeing is to be believed, they didn't say ‘We just can't do this anymore.' They said the process wasn't fair.” In August, Northrop Grumman broke ground near Hill Air Force Base on a new facility that will serve as the headquarters for the company's workforce, which will add thousands of jobs in the state of Utah, according to the release. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/02/25/northrop-grumman-expands-team-for-program-to-replace-air-force-ballistic-missiles

Graham Warwick The U.S. Air Force has detailed its plans to accelerate the emerging advanced air mobility market, and potentially become an early adopter of electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing (eVTOL) vehicles, but is making clear it does not intend to set requirements or fund development. Instead, the service wants to help developers along the way to commercial certification and volume production by providing testing resources and possibly enabling a near-term government public-use market for their vehicles in advance of FAA certification. The Air Force's Agility Prime program office published its “innovative capabilities opening” (ICO) on Feb. 25, establishing a contracting framework for prototyping projects designed to show whether, as their developers claim, eVTOL vehicles can revolutionize mobility, particularly logistics. Under the ICO framework, which will remain open until Feb. 28, 2025, the service plans to release a series of solicitations for different “areas of interest” (AOI). The first of these—AOI #1, or the “Air Race to Certification”—was also released on Feb. 25. Other AOIs could range from autonomy to manufacturing. Under AOI #1, the Air Force office plans to issue contracts to produce test reports that will substantiate company claims for their eVTOL vehicles. Based on a test report, the service could proceed to the next step, potentially an early procurement, says Col. Nathan Diller, Agility Prime integrated product team lead. “They can leverage that test report to get military certification that would allow near-term government use cases that would accelerate commercial certification, potentially providing revenue and data that accelerates the broader adoption of the technology,” he says. The Air Force has not established explicit requirements for an eVTOL. Instead, it has launched studies into potential missions in which commercial vehicles—both passenger-carrying and larger unmanned aircraft—could be used. These could include distributed logistics, medevac, firefighting, search-and-rescue, disaster relief and facility security. The Air Force is aiming for an initial operating capability (IOC) in fiscal 2023 with a “handful-plus” of vehicles in a squadron. “We have begun a series of studies to look at the business case associated with these different missions, and we have started looking at some basic constructs for what these units [operating the aircraft] might look like,” Diller says. “They may be very different units to what we are doing now.” To qualify under the first AOI, companies must have flown their vehicles by Dec. 17, 2020. Diller says some eVTOL developers are ready to submit test reports and move on to the next step, while others will take longer. “That gives us a year to see which companies are ready, but we feel we are in a position to award contracts quickly.” Agility Prime was provided with $10 million in funding in fiscal 2019 and $25 million in 2020. This is not money requested in the Air Force's fiscal 2021 budget, but Diller says there is a “strong desire and intent to fund” the program in fiscal 2022 and future years to get to an IOC in fiscal 2023. The AOI calls for vehicles that can carry three to eight people, with a range greater than 200 mi., speed faster than 100 mph and endurance of more than 60 min. As well as passenger-carrying eVTOLs, Diller says Agility Prime is looking at unmanned cargo aircraft heavier than 1,320 lb. because the other services are focusing below that weight. The Agility Prime ICO is structured to encourage participation by smaller companies and nontraditional defense contractors, but not exclude traditional Pentagon suppliers that are innovating, he says. Bidders are required to cover at least a third of the cost of the prototype project themselves. The objective of Agility Prime is to “catalyze the commercial market by bringing our military market to bear,” Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper said at a roundtable on Feb. 21. “It's equally important to make sure that commercial market catalyzes first in the U.S.,” he added. “That's equally as important as providing the capability to the warfighter. What we don't want to happen is what happened with the small drone migration to China,” he said. “It was a commercial technology, the Pentagon didn't take a proactive stance on it, and now most of that supply chain has moved to China.” U.S. government agencies have banned the use of Chinese-made drones, citing security concerns. “If we had realized that commercial trend and shown that the Pentagon is willing to pay a higher price for a trusted supply-chain drone, we probably could have kept part of the market here and not had to go through the security issues we have now,” he said. “Agility Prime is saying we are not going to let that happen again,” Roper said. Diller says the Air Force is not imposing military requirements on eVTOL developers because it wants to benefit from the low acquisition and operating costs and potentially high production volumes that could come out of the commercial market. “Since we are not putting research and development money in this, we are going to fall into accordance with what the industry partners want to do,” he says. “Our intent is that any testing they do with us will be something that takes them along the path to commercial certification and is not diverting them.” If the Air Force were to set requirements and fund development, “we would feel we are putting at risk a very large market that would allow us to eventually capitalize on that affordable quantity based on potential mass production at an automobile rate,” he says. https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/air-warfare-symposium/usaf-launches-effort-speed-commercial-evtol-market

Projets européens avortés, achats de matériels américains, retards multiples : les armées peinent à s'équiper de systèmes aériens téléopérés. Par Guerric Poncet Dès 1964, les armées françaises ont expérimenté de premiers modèles de drones. Mais plus d'un demi-siècle après, force est de constater que la France est à la traîne, et pas qu'un peu. Si on la compare avec des États de même rang militaire, comme le Royaume-Uni par exemple, le constat est sans appel : Paris aligne cinq drones Reaper (armés depuis fin 2019) et quelques dizaines de drones tactiques et légers, là où Londres dispose de dix drones Reaper (armés depuis 2007), d'une cinquantaine de drones tactiques et de plusieurs centaines de drones légers. Dans son rapport public 2020, la Cour des comptes pointe cette défaillance majeure, expliquant que « la France a tardé à tirer les conséquences de l'intérêt des drones dans les opérations militaires modernes ». Pour les sages, « l'effet conjugué des mésententes entre industriels, du manque de vision prospective des armées et des changements de pied des pouvoirs publics ont eu pour conséquences, dommageables et coûteuses, de prolonger la durée de vie de matériels vieillissants ». Ils ont aussi « conduit à l'acquisition de matériels américains aux conditions d'utilisation contraignantes et restrictives ». Ainsi, les premiers drones Reaper acquis en 2013 par la France pour répondre à l'urgence opérationnelle dans la bande sahélo-saharienne ont été prélevés sur des lignes d'assemblage destinées aux forces américaines. Ils ont donc fait l'objet de restrictions d'utilisation drastiques qui ont beaucoup compliqué leur début de vie opérationnelle. Par exemple, leur déploiement hors d'Afrique subsaharienne étant verrouillé, « pour rapatrier un vecteur aérien de Niamey à Cognac (où se situe l'escadron de drones 1/33 Belfort, qui opère les Reaper), un accord américain préalable, attendu de longs mois, a été nécessaire », racontent les sages. 2 % du budget des programmes d'armement « Les investissements liés aux programmes d'acquisition se sont accélérés ces dernières années, surtout depuis 2015, mais restent encore limités (...) en termes d'efficacité et de coûts », soulignent les sages, en référence notamment aux longues négociations entre les industriels européens et le ministère des Armées, qui juge les programmes excessivement coûteux et répète qu'il ne signera pas tant que les tarifs n'auront pas été revus nettement à la baisse. Mais l'appétit des industriels n'est pas le seul problème : « rapportés aux investissements annuels du ministère des Armées dans les programmes d'armement sur la période récente, les montants totaux dédiés aux drones n'ont jamais représenté plus de 2 % de l'effort global », explique aussi le rapport. Pour ne pas être éjecté des grandes puissances aériennes mondiales, il va donc falloir changer de braquet sur les drones. « L'important investissement, de l'ordre de 800 millions d'euros, réalisé pour acheter des drones américains, n'est que la première étape d'efforts financiers conséquents à venir », prévient le texte, qui pointe en particulier le retard pris par la Marine nationale dans le domaine des drones aériens, en raison des arbitrages effectués par le ministère notamment. « Les besoins (de la marine, NDLR) sont portés par la surveillance maritime de la deuxième plus vaste zone économique exclusive (ZEE) au monde, après celle des États-Unis », rappelle la Cour, qui espère l'aboutissement rapide d'un « système de drones tactiques à décollage et atterrissage vertical ». Les marins devraient être équipés d'un drone par navire d'ici 2030, mais en l'absence d'un programme suffisamment avancé à dix ans de cette échéance, la promesse semble difficile à tenir... sauf à acheter, de nouveau, hors d'Europe. « Des résistances d'ordre culturel » chez les aviateurs Le rapport relève aussi les nombreux échecs de projets européens de drones MALE (moyenne altitude, longue endurance) comme EuroMALE, Advanced UAV/Talarion ou Telemos, et les « difficultés qui s'amoncellent » pour le nouveau programme MALE en cours de développement. Pour les quatre pays partenaires (Allemagne, Espagne, France et Italie), ce dernier projet « présente des enjeux stratégiques qui vont largement au-delà de l'acquisition des matériels », car son succès ouvrira ou fermera les vannes de la coopération — et donc de la souveraineté – européenne dans le domaine. Pour le ministère des Armées français, les négociations doivent être bouclées début 2020, pour une notification du contrat mi-2020, car la situation est critique. « Il serait difficilement compréhensible qu'en 2028, les armées françaises ne soient pas dotées d'équipements aussi performants que ceux d'ores et déjà disponibles sur le marché », martèle le ministère dans sa réponse, publiée en annexe du rapport de la Cour des comptes. Enfin, les sages pointent des problèmes qui ne sont pas directement liés aux programmes d'armement, dont « des résistances d'ordre culturel, en particulier au sein de l'armée de l'air, dans la mesure où les drones bousculent les équilibres actuels qui placent le pilote au cœur du dispositif aérien ». Avec les restrictions budgétaires, les heures de vol d'entraînement se font rares, et les missions opérationnelles sont méticuleusement réparties entre les pilotes au sein de l'armée de l'air comme de l'aéronavale : ils craignent logiquement que l'arrivée massive de drones n'empiète sur leurs platebandes. https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/drones-militaires-la-cour-des-comptes-pointe-les-echecs-francais-25-02-2020-2364337_23.php

By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — The British government has confirmed it is developing a new nuclear warhead for its missile submarines, days after the U.S. revealed the program was going ahead before Parliament had been informed. In a written statement to Parliament, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace confirmed Feb. 25 that Britain is working on a new warhead to equip it's Trident missile-armed nuclear submarine fleet. “To ensure the Government maintains an effective deterrent throughout the commission of the Dreadnought Class ballistic missile submarine we are replacing our existing nuclear warhead to respond to future threats and the security environment,” Wallace said. The announcement was not expected to be made prior to publication of the defense, security and foreign policy review scheduled for late this year. But the Conservative government's hand was forced when U.S. officials revealed last week the program was up and running. That caused a stir in the U.K., as high-profile programs like the nuclear deterrent are usually announced in Parliament first. It's only a courtesy, but if Parliament is not informed first, ministers can be forced to attend the House of Commons to make a statement. “The decision is basically a forgone conclusion, but the announcement has come sooner than expected. We were looking at probably next year but certainly not before the defense and security review due for release towards the end of the year,” said David Cullen , the director at the U.K.-based Nuclear Information Service, an independent organization promoting awareness of nuclear weapons issues. Adm. Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, and Alan Shaffer, the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, separately made statements that Britain is pursuing development of its own version of the W93 warhead, which is in the assessment phase for the U.S. military ahead of replacing U.S. Navy W76 warhead. “It's wonderful that the U.K. is working on a new warhead at the same time, and I think we will have discussions and be able to share technologies,” Shaffer told an audience at the Nuclear Deterrence Summit, hosted in Washington by ExchangeMonitor. Shaffer said the W93 and the British weapon “will be two independent development systems.” Richard, in testimony prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Feb. 20 that the W93 will “support a parallel replacement warhead program in the United Kingdom.” Wallace told Parliament that the Defence Ministry's “Defence Nuclear Organisation is working with the Atomic Weapons Establishment: to build the highly skilled teams and put in place the facilities and capabilities needed to deliver the replacement warhead; whilst also sustaining the current warhead until it is withdrawn from service. We will continue to work closely with the US to ensure our warhead remains compatible with the Trident.” The new British warhead will replace the existing weapon, known as the Trident Holbrook, which equips the four Vanguard-class submarines charged with providing Britain's nuclear deterrence capability. Cullen noted that the existing British weapon is unlikely to be very different from America's W76. “They are both fitted to the same Trident missile used by Britain and the U.S. Our assumption is the two warheads are very close, if not virtually identical," he said. The Atomic Weapons Establishment in the U.K. is undertaking a life-extension program on its stock of warheads, including replacing some electronics and systems to improve accuracy and provide performance benefits. The Trident Holbrook entered service along with the Vanguard-class submarines in the mid-1990s. Britain plans to replace the subs in the early 2030s with four new Dreadnought-class subs. Work on the £31 billion (U.S. $40 billion) boat program is already underway. Britain is also spending billions of pounds building infrastructure to support the Atomic Weapons Establishment's development, building and testing of a new warhead at sites in southern England and Valduc, France, where Britain is cooperating in hydrodynamic experiments with the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission as part of a wider nuclear agreement. Cullen said there is little in the public domain on the delivery timetable for the current warhead updates. “They started delivery of the life-extended warheads around 2016/2017. The warheads will last up to another 30 years if you assume they are doing similar changes to updates being undertaken by the U.S.,” he said. “I expect Mk4A, [as the updated weapon is referred to], to come out of service in the mid-2040s with the replacement warhead being available from the late 2030s at the earliest.” Britain and the U.S. have cooperated on nuclear weapons development for decades. In 1958, they signed what is known as the Mutual Defence Agreement to formalize that arrangement. That pact remains in place and is renewed about every decade. It was last signed in 2014. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/02/25/britain-confirms-new-nuclear-warhead-project-after-us-officials-spill-the-beans/

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is requesting $364 million to conduct a division-sized exercise in the Indo-Pacific region in fiscal 2021, the service confirmed to Defense News. Yet, the cost breakout details are classified, according to an Army spokeswoman. The exercise is fueled by a rising China, characterized in the National Defense Strategy as a long-term, strategic competitor of the United States. The NDS lays out a world where great power competition rather than counterterrorism will drive the Defense Department's decision-making and force structure. While the U.S. Army has 85,000 permanently stationed troops in the Indo-Pacific region and is already conducting exercises such as Pacific Pathways with allies and partners, the service is aiming to practice rapid deployment from the continental United States to the Pacific. In FY20, the Army will conduct a smaller version of Defender Pacific while Defender Europe will get more investment and focus. But then attention and dollars will swing over to the Pacific in FY21. Defender Europe will be scaled back in FY21. The Army is requesting just $150 million to conduct the exercise in Europe, according to the Army. This year it has been reported that Defender Europe, already underway with troops and equipment arriving at ports on the continent this month, will cost about $340 million, which is roughly in line with what the service is requesting in FY21 for the Pacific version. The only specific funding lines broken out for the FY21 Defender Pacific exercise is home station training; it's unclear if those numbers are included in the total cost. The Army is requesting $150,000 for home stationing training devoted specifically for Defender Pacific and is also asking for another $214,252 for an “expanded level deployment exercise that demonstrates employment of [Continental United States]-based forces into the Pacific Theater,” according to budget documents. The funds include additional transportation, maintenance and operations for the exercise. Defender Pacific will build upon the U.S. Army's expanding role in the region. The service is already growing its Pacific Pathways exercise series and plans to focus on reinforcing the Oceania region this year. The series began in 2014 and has supported training efforts that satisfy bilateral needs between the U.S. Army and its allies and partners in the region in roughly three rotations each year for about 10 months total. Last year, Pacific Pathways shifted from shorter rotations that involved more countries to longer visits that involve fewer countries as a way to improve bilateral relations. And participation has grown from a battalion-sized task force to roughly the size of a brigade. The Defender series is intended to be a regular exercise each year in the Pacific and Europe with the regions trading off being the larger exercise every other year. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/02/25/army-wants-364-million-to-put-on-defender-pacific-in-fy21/

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency submitted its report on unfunded priorities to Congress last week, which includes a number of priorities worth more than $1.1 billion. The list demonstrates the tangible consequences of a flat Pentagon budget request and provides a road map for lawmakers to ensure that the U.S. homeland and America's forward-deployed troops have sufficient missile defense protection. The Trump administration requested $705.4 billion for the Department of Defense for fiscal 2021, a level that fails to keep pace with inflation. Accordingly, the DoD is only requesting $9.2 billion for FY21 for the MDA — more than an 11 percent reduction from the FY20 enacted amount of $10.4 billion. The National Defense Authorization Act requires the MDA to submit a list to Congress of items not included in the administration's budget request but that are “necessary to fulfill a requirement associated with an operational or contingency plan of a combatant command or other validated requirement.” The list includes programs that combatant commanders genuinely need and would have included if additional resources were available. The MDA's top unfunded priority for FY21 is $231 million for 10 additional Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missiles. The SM-3 IIA missile is designed to intercept medium- and intermediate-range missiles. This additional purchase would bring the total number to 24 missiles a year, which MDA calls the “maximum sustainable production rate per year without further investment.” In addition to the SM-3 IIA's vital existing capabilities against medium- and intermediate-range missiles, the DoD believes that the missile could potentially be adapted to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. In response to a mandate in the NDAA, the MDA plans to conduct a flight test this spring, known as FTM-44, to determine whether an SM-3 IIA could intercept an ICBM. If successful, the SM-3 IIA could then provide an additional and complementary layer of protection for the U.S. homeland against a limited ICBM attack from an adversary such as North Korea. Consequently, keeping the SM-3 IIA production line at full speed would enable the U.S. to meet combatant commander requirements for medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missile defense. And if the test this spring is successful, optimized ongoing production would also allow the DoD to more quickly field SM-3 IIAs for homeland defense against ICBMs. The MDA's second- and third-highest unfunded priorities relate to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. These include $319 million to procure an eighth THAAD battery for the United States and $30 million to procure trucks required to support THAAD systems. The THAAD is a rapidly deployable land-based missile defense system designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles during their terminal (or final) phase of flight. Since the program was initiated, the MDA reports, THAAD has completed 15 successful intercepts in 15 attempts. THAAD uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy an incoming warhead. It is effective against short-, medium- and some intermediate-range ballistic missile threats. The DoD can transport the THAAD system by air, land or sea. Iran's January ballistic missile attack on U.S. service members at two bases in Iraq highlighted the lack of sufficient U.S. ballistic missile defense capacity. With no U.S. ballistic missile interceptors in range, U.S. forces could only watch and wait for impact. Had a THAAD system been deployed in the region, the U.S. could have intercepted the Iranian ballistic missiles and better protected U.S. troops. Acquiring an eighth THAAD battery makes not only operational sense, but also financial sense. Saudi Arabia is purchasing a large quantity of THAAD systems. A U.S. and Saudi “synchronized” purchase would enable the U.S. to benefit from the associated economies of scale. The fourth priority on MDA's unfunded list is $39 million to “develop technology and advanced command and control to integrate networked sensors to detect and track advanced cruise missile threats.” As Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, the commander of Northern Command, highlighted in congressional testimony on Feb. 13, the U.S. homeland remains incredibly vulnerable to a cruise missile attack. He testified that “advanced cruise missiles now carried by Russian aircraft and submarines present a growing challenge to our current sensor networks and have the range and accuracy to strike military and civilian targets throughout the United States and Canada.” O'Shaughnessy argued that investments in cruise missile defense capabilities “are necessary to defend our vital facilities and infrastructure, preserve our national ability to project power abroad, and help to safeguard our citizens and vital institutions.” That is exactly what MDA's unfunded priority would do, and the burden of proof should be on those who argue that it should not be funded. A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to protect the American people. The MDA's report on unfunded priorities to Congress demonstrates that the agency requires additional funding from Congress to fulfill this important responsibility. Bradley Bowman is the senior director for the Center on Military and Political Power with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/25/insufficient-missile-defense-funding-would-leave-americans-vulnerable/

By: Sebastian Sprenger MUNICH — As the European Union wrestles to assert its role in world affairs, its members are increasingly looking to Germany and France. But the two allies have yet to find their groove when it comes to weapons cooperation and joint operations. The recent Munich Security Conference added new assignments to Germany's to-do list, taking the already immense expectations of Berlin to a new level. Officials are slated to announce key program decisions this spring that could redefine the trans-Atlantic relationship on a political and industrial level. The government also wants to put teeth to the promise of an operational role together with France by initiating a naval protection mission in the Strait of Hormuz under an EU flag. But Germany is famously sheepish on defense matters, its coalition-government parties CDU and SPD are far apart on key strategic questions, and Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer oversaw an intra-party struggle that some in Germany say left her weakened. Here's a look at some of the key items in Germany's portfolio: Speaking at Munich, French President Emmanuel Macron once again offered French nuclear weapons in the context of protecting EU members, now that the U.K. is leaving the bloc. He largely repeated his points from an earlier speech in Paris, which amounted to an overture to European allies to discuss the issue further. German officials appeared unsure about the whole idea, even though Munich Security Conference emcee Wolfgang Ischinger flagged the proposal as an open invitation that requires a formal response. When asked about the idea, Kramp-Karrenbauer stressed Germany's dependence on the NATO nuclear umbrella, which is underwritten by the U.S. arsenal. Since Macron has ruled out putting his country's atomic weapons under some kind of EU authority, what exactly is on the table, she wondered. For example, does the proposal imply some kind of European nuclear industry — a no-go for Germany? “We must have the conversation,” Kramp-Karrenbauer said. “But I can't imagine coming to a decision that would have us leave the American umbrella only to slip under a French one that is much smaller.” Creative law Germany previously punted on a Strait of Hormuz naval protection mission to protect cargo ships against Iranian harassment, but Berlin wants to try again. Doing it with the Americans is off the the table because Europeans are spooked by Washington's “maximum pressure” campaign, so a strictly European mission would be ideal. And since the French and the Dutch already have sent ships to patrol the crucial waterway under their own moniker, why not expand that mission into an EU-led affair? Putting the mission under the auspices of the European Union would require “better use” of permissions granted in the bloc's founding legal texts, Kramp-Karrenbauer told the Munich conference audience. According to a German Defence Ministry spokesman, that's a reference to Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union. The section says the European Council can authorize a group of countries to carry out certain missions if they have the desire and wherewithal to do so. As for the wherewithal, Kramp-Karrenbauer left open exactly what types of assets the German Navy would be able to contribute to a Strait of Hormuz mission. The timing also remains murky. While the minister mentioned the need for an EU summit on the topic, her spokesman said there was no information yet about when such a gathering could happen. Issue experts have said protecting global shipping lanes should be considered low-hanging fruit for Germany, as the mission is inherently defensive in nature. “It's the mission that Germany should have chosen months ago,” said Jeffrey Rathke, president of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Tornado warning Replacing Germany's fleet of aging Tornado aircraft is a can of worms like no other. That's because a portion of the fleet is assigned to carry American nuclear-tipped gravity bombs into Russia in the event of a major war. Though largely symbolic, the idea of German pilots using German aircraft to deliver American nukes is something of a quiet cornerstone of trans-Atlantic relations. People here don't like to talk about it much, but the effect is significant. The Tornado aircraft are getting old, which means the nuclear weapons will soon need a new ride. And this is where things get even trickier: Each of the replacement candidates can satisfy one requirement of Berlin's decision-making calculus, but not all of them. Boeing's F-18 fighter jet would represent a political commitment to the United States as the guarantor of nuclear deterrence. In such a scenario, the Pentagon presumably would lean forward to quickly sort out the requisite modifications and certifications, which is no small matter when it comes to nuclear weapons employment. The Airbus-made Eurofighter, on the other hand, would dovetail with plans by Germany and France to build the Future Combat Air System — and prop up local industry at the same time. Airbus said it would consider a pick of the F-18 as a death knell for the futuristic program, a view that France is reportedly also pushing behind the scenes. At the same time, there is the question of the U.S. government's willingness to approve a European aircraft for the most sensitive of missions, especially when the Trump administration already feels cheated by the continent on defense and trade. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, once in the running, is not expected to make a return to the competition, the German Defence Ministry spokeswoman told Defense News. Kramp-Karrenbauer said she will decide by the end of March. Speaking at Munich, she also hinted at a new round of fundamental discussions about the nuclear-sharing mission in general. “That is the political dimension of the decision that we have to debate within the coalition,” she said. “I want to have that debate relatively quickly, as we need clarity.” Three strikes? The “Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem,” or TLVS, is one of those German word creations that sounds as complicated as it is. The program would replace the venerable Patriot anti-missile system that's been in service for decades. Made by Lockheed Martin and its German junior partner MBDA, it boasts several new features, like 360-degree radar, interceptor coverage and open-data architecture. Crucially, Berlin wants complete control over all system components, as opposed to simply buying something akin to a license for using American-made gear, which is how many weapon sales work. While officials had been gung-ho about the program, things have gone quiet since last December, when the government disclosed that contract negotiations over the industry consortium's second offer weren't going as expected. At the time, the plan was to conclude talks by the end of the year, though that didn't happen. As of earlier this month, the talks were still ongoing, according to the defense spokeswoman. “The negotiations are on a good track,” she told Defense News. Once considered a must-have project by Berlin, TLVS' future may now look iffy, especially given there is talk of yet another, third offer to be solicited from the vendor team. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich-security-conference/2020/02/24/germanys-to-do-list-a-spring-of-indecisions-is-brewing-in-berlin/

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The words “classified program” conjure up images of experimental planes, highly advanced super weapons and unidentified flying objects operating under cloak and dagger at Area 51. But as the U.S. Air Force gears up to defend its fiscal 2021 budget on Capitol Hill, lifting the veil of secrecy on some of these programs will be key to getting lawmakers on board with controversial retirements of legacy aircraft, defense analysts said. In its FY21 budget proposal, the Air Force asked to cut 17 B-1 bombers, 44 A-10 jet aircraft, 24 Global Hawk Block 2 and 3 surveillance drones, as well as 13 KC-135 and 16 KC-10 tankers. It is also cutting the number of contractor-flown MQ-9 Reaper combat air patrols, and it will replace 24 C-130H airlifters with 19 C-130Js coming online. Those reductions net $21 billion in savings over the next five years, with about 40 percent of that spent on classified programs buried in the black budget, creating the initial appearance of capabilities disappearing without any kind of a replacement and no obvious boost to research and development funds. That could create a challenge for the Air Force as it tries to get members of Congress and their staff on board, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein acknowledged during an exclusive interview on Feb. 18 with Defense News. “Most of what we're giving up is unclassified. On the minus column you're going to see things that are real, that are flying right now that are all legacy, real legacy capability. It's a real risk to combatant commanders today. What we're buying — not all but a lot of it — is in the classified realm,” Goldfein said. “As we go forward with Congress, I think our biggest challenge, quite frankly, is we were able to talk up to the secret level and above inside the Department of Defense in most of our conversations. That's harder to do with Congress,” he added. The Air Force is trying to combat that by “doubling down” on office calls with lawmakers and congressional staff to discuss the classified investments. Goldfein said the service has done “well over 20” meetings with members of the congressional defense committees and is on track to brief every lawmaker willing to sit down for a classified briefing before public budget hearings start next month. But Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense budget expert at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that such briefings are time-consuming and may not be of interest to most lawmakers. "The members that are going to take the time to go to a [secure room] and get read in and figure out what's what — there are even some members of the armed services [that won't do that]. It's pretty limited who is going to have that kind of time,” she said. It will be important for the Air Force to publicly justify — at unclassified hearings and other venues — what its classified investments are going to enable, said Todd Harrison, a budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “How does it contribute to implementation of the [National Defense Strategy]? How does it address vulnerabilities in the force? How does it create strategic challenges for our adversaries? If they can talk about that and then [be] more explicit with Congress about how the money is being used, I think that could help mitigate some of this,” Harrison said. “If you can't talk about the new investment, the positive aspect for 40 percent of the cases, I think the Air Force is effectively going into this fight with one arm tied behind its back.” While the large investment in classified programs is a challenge, it is not insurmountable, said David Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and a retired Air Force lieutenant general. “Because a good chunk is classified, that's a good thing. These are truly strategic advantages that we're investing in, and they're not items that you'd want out there in the public space,” he said. Goldfein is confident he will be able to convey to Congress the importance of retiring key aircraft at this point in time. “At least we can lay out the why,” he said. “It's going to be hard. Asking Congress to retire legacy aircraft is always hard. But I think we have a really positive story to tell, with the analysis behind it.” Across the board — whether the Air Force has to defend cuts to the B-1, A-10, Global Hawk or tanker fleet — the argument comes down to fleet management, he said. “We're putting on the table 17 B-1s, at least to this point,” Goldfein said. “Many of those 17 B-1s are on the ramp, but they were not flying. Then you do your business case on what it would take to actually get them back to a high enough readiness rate, and the business case actually doesn't justify it. “You'll see the same methodology we used for each of those weapons systems. How do you retire the oldest of each, refunnel that money into the remaining fleet so you can keep that fleet flying for longer?” But any skeptics in Congress will want to see hard data proving there are benefits to retiring some of these aircraft, or a plan to drive down risk, Harrison said. For instance, the Air Force is retiring its oldest, least capable B-1 bombers, but it will keep all associated maintainers and infrastructure, which cuts down on the savings. To make a case to Congress, the Air Force must make a strong argument on why that reduction could improve mission-capable rates, and the service must provide the statistics, he said. Regarding the KC-10 and KC-135 tanker reductions, Harrison said the Air Force must describe exactly what it will do to ameliorate a demand for aerial refueling that already exceeds what the service can provide. “What is the Air Force going to do over the next few years to mitigate the lack of tanker support? Is the Air Force going to go forward with some of the plans they've previously had to do contracted tanking as an interim solution like the Navy has been doing?” he wondered. And to justify the Global Hawk fleet, Harrison said, the Air Force may be called to defend why it is getting rid of those highly utilized assets instead of the aging inventory of U-2 spy planes. The biggest arguments in favor of keeping legacy aircraft will likely come from lawmakers in districts affected by retirements of legacy aircraft. It will be up to the Air Force to explain to those members what capabilities will come on board to replace it, or why these divestments need to take place even if there is no immediate replacement, Deptula said. “We'll see what happens,” he said. “I think in some districts you'll see understanding and support. If you look at the bomber issue ... with the promise of modernized B-21s that are coming on board, I think that there are some congressional districts and members who will go: ‘Yeah, OK, we understand that logic.' ” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2020/02/24/convincing-congress-secretive-programs-could-prove-harmful-to-air-force-funding-plans/

For years, the first time the Department of Defense's cyber forces faced high-end digital attacks was not in practice or in a classroom, but in actual operations. For the cyber teams that focused on offense, a playbook developed from years of National Security Agency operations guided their work. But on the defensive side, standards and processes needed to be created from scratch meaning, in part, there was a lack of uniformity and little tradecraft to follow. Because cyber leaders had focused on staffing, training opportunities for defensive cyber operators had been sparse. To help solve that problem, the Department of Defense is expected to award a contract worth roughly $1 billion later this year for a global cyber training environment. But in the meantime, some units across the joint force have gone so far as to create their own small-scale training events and exercises to keep their forces' skill sets sharp. Perhaps the best example of these efforts are the 567th Cyberspace Operations Group's “Hunt Event,” which has quickly grown to become one of the largest cyber exercises across the department. The bi-monthly exercise pits teams against each other in a competition for the coveted Goblet of Cyber trophy and bragging rights. The group aims to better train defensive hunters, improve defensive tactics, techniques and procedures and develop defensive tradecraft. “The point of this was that we didn't really have a good range space to play on that had an active and live adversary so we could, in theory, replay traffic and we could go in and generate some easy kill, low hanging fruit signatures for detection,” Capt. Reid Hottel, training flight commander at the 837th Cyber Operations Squadron, told Fifth Domain. “If we are supposed to be the primary counter to advanced persistent threats, the way that we were training was not like how we were fighting.” The exercises started roughly a year ago to teach operators how to hunt on networks. It's now evolved to where participants also work on leadership skills and build custom exploits on a large range with multiple stakeholders. In addition to the Air Force CPTs — the defensive cyber teams each service provides to U.S. Cyber Command — members from the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and Mission Defense Teams, specialized defensive cyber teams that will protect critical Air Force missions and local installations, also take part. At the most recent exercise in January, a representative from NASA participated. Now, the exercises have become so popular Hottel said other services are interested in participating in the future. This includes a Marine Corps CPT at Scott Air Force Base. Building better leaders and hunters To be the best, cyber leaders recognized their teams would have to beat the best and that meant training against the world's most advanced cyber threats. Some other forms of training — such as the popular capture the flag game, which involve teams trying to find “flags” such as files or scripts inside a network — are not always the most realistic form of training. “When we were fighting, we're up against advanced adversaries. We're up against adversaries that are using tactics, techniques and procedures that are just above and beyond what simple little [scripts] ... we were using in the past,” Hottel said. “This hunt exercise allows us to do that, whereas in the past, particularly in other flag exercises, we are not training at the APT level. We [were] training at the script kiddie kind of level and here we're training at a much higher difficulty, which stretches and grows our operators into being true hunters.” He added that the exercises are also helping develop tradecraft. “That's one thing that nobody really teaches, there's no commercial course that you can go buy that teaches tradecraft, that teaches the military away, that teaches the way that we use to find the APT, which in theory, should be ever evolving because our adversary is as well,” Hottel said. “These exercises have been really eye-opening to provide tradecraft development, to become hunters, to understand what it means to be a cyber protection team.” The exercise has evolved to include custom exploits, custom root kits, custom attacks and zero-day exploits within a real-world mission where in some cases hunters don't have any indictors of compromise that exist in the public domain. This means that there is no public reporting available on the exploits or tactics the adversary is using. Participants can hone their skills, by actively hunting on a network in order to find anomalies that could lead to trouble. “As hunters,” he said, “we don't necessarily have singular methodology, we don't necessarily have a unique way that we can go about finding advanced threats mostly because we haven't really been training like that.” The training is also helpful for new mission defense teams, which are just being officially resourced within the Air Force around local installations. By having those teams sit next to CPTs, who are using generally the same tools, they can learn about tradecraft and what to look for at the local level. During the most recent exercise, officials said it was the first time they intentionally tried to trip up participants. Organizers created fake attack chains to see how the players scoped an investigation into a network and deducted points for the amount of time they wasted following that lead. This technique helps teach teams how to scope investigations without going down “rabbit holes,” and not adequately planning, Lt. Christopher Trusnik, chief of training at the 835th Cyberspace Operations Squadron, told Fifth Domain. Beyond the technical hunting, this approach helped team leader to flex leadership muscles. “It was more of teaching that leadership technique of you plan for this, how do you investigate quickly and how do you triage your investigation,” Trusnik, whose unit ran the January exercise, said. Hottel explained that following this most recent event, teams focused on leadership and organization. At one point, someone on his team previously had been coached on what they needed to include such as specific indictors that might be valuable to their mission partners to understand. At this exercise, they included those indicators. In another instance, one team member who had never run a hunt mission struggled at first. Hottel stepped in and with just a little guidance, the leader became more disciplined and was able to find things much better in the last three days. Benefits of cyberspace in training Training in cyberspace has benefits that other domains don't offer. For one, forces don't need a dedicated battlespace such as the Army's National Training Center or the range used at Nellis Air Force Base for the Air Force's Red Flag. With cyber, a custom range can be built and forces from all across the world can come in and participate. The range used for the hunt exercises stays up weeks after the formal event so individuals or teams can try their hand, though they obviously won't be eligible for the Goblet of Cyber trophy. All of this could change with the Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE). PCTE is a major program being run by the Army on behalf of Cyber Command and the joint force to provide a web-based cyber training environment where cyber warriors can remotely plug in around the world and conduct individual training, collective team training or even mission rehearsal — all of which does not exist on a large scale currently. Hottel said that his forces haven't been limited thus far without PCTE. Though, once the platform is online, they can upload the range they used for a competition and it can be accessed by anyone across the joint cyber mission force. Testing new concepts But in the meantime, smaller, unit level exercises like those run by the 567th allow forces to test concepts and learn from others. Unlike larger exercises that have requirements and stated objectives, smaller exercises can serve as a proving ground for staying sharp and pushing the envelope. This allows local units more control over what their personnel do but can also allow teams to test new concepts in a relatively risk-free environment. “Let's say that a national [cyber protection] team wants to test out ... whatever they're currently using because they feel like it would provide them an advantage so they want to test out something,” Hottel said. “We can throw that on the range as well and they can utilize an entirely defensive tool set. We're not trying to make people tool experts, we're trying to make them tradecraft, defensive hunters.” Hottel also said that personnel playing on the archived range can bring new ideas, which can then be tested during the next exercise. In some cases, they may come up with an idea on their own and bring it to the next exercise to see if it actually works. Ultimately, the event is designed to create better cyber warriors. “We're not trying to make people tool experts, we're trying to make them tradecraft, defensive hunters,” Hottel said. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/air-force/2020/02/21/the-largest-cyber-exercise-youve-never-heard-of/