News

By: The Associated Press BEIJING — A study says Southeast Asian countries are cutting defense spending as a result of the economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus outbreak, potentially opening up room for China to further assert its claims in the region. Aristyo Rizka Darmawan, a maritime security expert at the University of Indonesia, writes that slashing defense spending is seen as a relatively easy way to cut costs when countries are facing pressure on their budgets. “Indonesia, for example, has announced it will slash its defense budget this year by nearly US$588 million. Thailand has likewise reduced its defense allocation by $555 million. Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines all face similar pressure,” Darmawan wrote in the online journal of the Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank. “Less defense spending will invariably mean less patrols at sea.” China recently announced it will increase its defense spending by 6.6 percent in 2020, despite a major downturn in the country's economic growth due to the pandemic. The increase is the lowest in years, but will still allow China to expand its ability to enforce its territorial claims in the South China Sea and grow its military presence in the Western Pacific and Indian oceans. Another key priority is maintaining a credible threat against Taiwan, the self-governing island democracy that China considers its own territory, to be brought under its control by military force if necessary. China has maintained its presence in the South China Sea throughout the virus outbreak. Recent frictions include Chinese ships shadowing Malaysian mineral exploration operations and the sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat by a Chinese maritime security vessel. However, China's foreign minister dismissed claims that the country is exploiting the coronavirus outbreak to expand its regional footprint, labeling such accusations as “sheer nonsense.” State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters at a news conference on Sunday that China is cooperating closely on anti-virus efforts with Southeast Asian countries, several of whom have overlapping territorial claims with China in the strategically vital waterway. While China has long been stepping up its presence in the region, Wang said other countries — likely meaning the United States and its allies — have been creating instability with military flights and sea patrols. “Their ill-intentioned and despicable moves are meant to sow discord between China and [Southeast Asian countries] and undermine the hard-won stability in the region,” Wang said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/05/26/downward-trend-southeast-asian-countries-cut-defense-spending/

Chiara Vercellone A future where artificial intelligence controls Washington D.C. may not be far off, according to a new book from Peter Singer and August Cole: “Burn-In, a Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution.” Like the authors' previous book, “Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War,” “Burn-In” is a blend of fiction and facts that explore how technology will shape the future. The science fiction thriller showcases over 300 technological trends that the authors believe will push the United States into a new industrial revolution. The story revolves around an FBI agent and its robot partner working to stop a cyber-terrorist who has taken control over the nation's capital. Singer, a strategist and senior fellow at the non-partisan think tank New America, spoke with Chiara Vercellone about what inspired the book, the response from officials how the duo researched it. This interview has been edited for brevity. C4ISRNET: This novel blends fictional characters with extensive research on what technology might be like in the future. You show how AI might have an effect on everything, from politics and economy to our society. Why is this realistic in such a short amount of time? SINGER: We conducted research on everything from compiling the reports on which jobs will be automated, to Amazon patent applications, to interviews with AI scientists, but also people who worked on the water system of Washington D.C. We even did site visits to inside the White House. We used that to essentially project forward not just how AI and robotics are going to be used in your city, your business and your home, but also some of the, frankly, scary new vulnerabilities and trends that they are going to introduce. What are some of the security threats that we're going to be wrestling with, whether it's in your home or how you think about it for an entire city? C4ISRNET: The book is set 20 years from now. Is that the right time frame for the development of all encompassing AI ? SINGER: We had a “no vaporware” rule. Every single technology, every single trend, every single scene in the book had to be pulled from a technology project that is already in motion right now: A technology that already exists or a research project that is already happening, a cyberattack that may not have happened in the U.S. but has happened somewhere else, or has been something that researchers have proved is possible. And, honestly, that kind of grounding, frankly, makes it even more compelling and scarier. C4ISRNET: As artificial intelligence can be used for good to help defend against cyberattacks, it can also be used to carry out these attacks. As the book shows, the FBI uses AI to solve cases more efficiently but D.C. has been taken hostage by a cyberterrorist using the same technology. Are there any risks that officials are taking today in funding the development of this technology? SINGER: I think of when we got computers and they've move to a point where we don't even kind of notice them around us anymore. When you go into your kitchen, there are tons of little red lights of different things that are computerized, but we don't think of them as computers anymore. Relative to AI, so much of the attention has been on this revolt of the robots. But one of the things that we play with in the book is that we're seeing all these applications, but we're also not preparing our economy and our society for these changes that will come. Industrial revolutions are really traumatic: We're going to see everything from job displacement to new political ideologies, even extremist ones, and we're not preparing for that. Even more directly related to the development of AI, we're recreating almost all the mistakes that we made with the regular Internet a generation ago. Even if the internet brought a lot of incredible things, we didn't think about security and the development of it, and that created a lot of consequences. And we're doing the very same thing right now, as we wire up our cities, our homes, into what is now an Internet of Things and an increasingly AI-fueled Internet of Things. C4ISRNET: You and August Cole have been invited to brief the book's lessons to officials at the White House, Congress, CIA and at the Pentagon. What were those conversations like? SINGER: For our past book, “Ghost Fleet,” we got to do everything from White House briefings to go to the Joint Chiefs conference room inside the Pentagon, and the Navy now has a $3 billion shipbuilding program that's called Ghost Fleet. And the same thing has happened with “Burn-In.” Even before it was published, we were able to brief some of its lessons to groups like the Joint Special Operations Command to the NSA and Cyber Command and as you and I are speaking right now, there's a new government report called the Cyber Solarium Commission. It's a bipartisan commission, and they issued a major report of ways to reset U.S. cybersecurity strategy for the future. And it actually begins with a scene written by August Cole and I. So, in many ways, Congress has taken the world of “Burn-In” and moved it into official government reports. They wanted a way to share real cyberthreats, and what they didn't want to happen is what happened to the various reports before 9/11 that warned about the attack but that nobody listened to until after the fact. So, they asked us to help with visualizing that world with the idea that it might emotionally compel them to not make the same mistake. C4ISRNET: What was the process of deciding which technology was developed enough to think it could become a threat in the future? SINGER: We would first build up a baseline of understanding and try and draw upon the wisdom of the crowd. For example, when we were looking at the question of which jobs are likely to be automated, we actually built, as far as I'm aware, the first data set that brought together every job prediction report, around 13 different predictions in total. It included everything from what the World Bank says to what consulting companies say. That gives you that factual grounding, and then you have to put your fiction hat on and you say, “okay, of all of these, which ones are not just the most important to talk about, but are the most interesting and compelling to talk about.” So the husband of the main character is a way that we use to illustrate that many people when they think about automation, they think about a factory worker or losing their job or maybe a truck driver, something blue collar but the data shows that it cuts across not just blue collar, but also white collar. So, we chose to make the character, a contract lawyer who's been automated, and that's not just to show that white collar jobs are at risk here, but it allows you to have that character hit some more compelling human themes. t's really interesting what happens when you read the reports and plans but also talk to not just the Silicon Valley engineers, but all the way up to the billionaires, is there's this incredible and rightful excitement at the world that they're creating. But there's also sometimes a failure to appreciate that their Utopian visions can sometimes seem very dystopian to other parts of society. And you can see this for example, with facial recognition, where they'll talk excitingly about how you're going to use it in a restaurant and use it in a train station, and all the money that's going to be made. And then you pull back and think through everything, from how will the government use this? How do people with a different point of view that the police think about mass scale of face recognition? How does this change on our personal relationships? You think it's great that the greeter to the store will have automated face recognition, and that they'll be able to call me by name as I enter. But how am I going to think about that person? Am I going to think of them as friendlier or is it just the fact that I know the computer gave them my name? The visions of the future can be Utopian, but it can also feel really creepy in other ways. C4ISRNET: How long has this book been in the works? SINGER: The timeline from when you provide the final version of the book to the publisher, and then when it actually comes out in the stores is about nine months. So, we turned in “Burn-In” in fall of 2019 and it's coming out in summer 2020, and that's just the way the book business works. The challenge of this blend is that there are so many things that that were happening, that are actually a scene or a moment from the book. We would start tweeting them out, calling him a #BurnInbookmoment. And sometimes they were something that was cool and exciting maybe a robot that we write about in the book actually being deployed. But sometimes it was something rather scary, a certain kind of attack that had been researched now actually starting to happen. In the longer term, there might be a problem with the technology in the book. I'll give you a an example: In one of the scenes, there is a drone, and it's pretty clear it's an Amazon drone that flies overhead but we don't name if by company, but we describe it and it has a footnote it's Amazon's patent for the drone. We didn't dream up that it had this number of rotors, but this is Amazon's literal plan for it. Now, five to ten years from now, Amazon might change that plan, and they may plan for it to be a six-rotor trial and it turns out it's a four-rotor trial or something. That's where the technology could be thrown off in time, but we were pretty careful. https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2020/05/25/five-burn-in-questions-on-the-real-robotic-revolution/

By: Eric Lofgren Congress' unprecedented fiscal response to COVID-19 has many in the defense community wondering whether belt tightening will hit the Pentagon. On May 19, the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote a letter arguing for substantial defense budget cuts to support additional spending on the pandemic. Nonprofit progressive supporters have been asking to cut a much larger $350 billion each year from the Pentagon in their “Moral Budget” proposal. What the progressives perhaps do not fully appreciate is the “stickiness” of defense budgets. In economics, stickiness refers to rigidity in the movement of wages and prices despite broader economic shifts pushing for new equilibrium. The phenomenon is apparent in defense budgets as well. Most expectations are that the fiscal 2021 budget will remain over $700 billion. Consider an analogy: the 2008 financial crisis. Lehman Brothers collapsed just a couple weeks before fiscal year 2009 started, leaving that $666 billion defense budget largely beyond recall. The following years' budgets were $691 billion, $687 billion, $646 billion and then finally in FY13 a more precipitous 10 percent fall to $578 billion. It took four years for the Pentagon to really feel the squeeze of the financial downturn. The uninitiated may believe COVID-19 happened with enough of lead time to affect the FY21 budget. Congress received the president's budget in February 2020 and has until the start of October to make targeted cuts without encountering another continuing resolution. The defense budget, however, represents the culmination of a multiyear process balancing thousands of stakeholder interests. It reflects a vast amount of information processed at every level of the military enterprise. The Pentagon's work on the FY21 budget request started nearly two years ahead of time and includes a register of funding estimates out to FY25. Moreover, defense programs are devised and approved based on life-cycle cost and schedule estimates. Cuts to a thorough plan may flip the analysis of alternatives on its head, recommending pivots to new systems or architectures and upsetting contract performance. Not only are current budgets shaped by many years of planning, but they get detailed to an almost microscopic level. For example, the Army's FY21 research, development, test and evaluation request totaled $12.8 billion, less than 2 percent of the overall Pentagon request. Yet the appropriation identifies 267 program elements decomposing into a staggering 2,883 budget program activity codes averaging less than $10 million each. Congressional staff is too small to understand the implications of many cost, schedule and technical trade-offs. To gather information on impacts, the Pentagon is thrown into a frenzy of fire drills. More draconian measures, like the FY13 sequestration, leading to indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts can sidestep hard questions but comes at a significant cost to efficiency. Targeted cuts at a strategic level, such as to the nuclear recapitalization programs and other big-ticket items, can expect stiff resistance. First, there is real concern about great power competition and the damage that may be wrought by acting on short-term impulses. Second, targeted programs and their contractors will immediately report the estimated number of job losses by district. Before measures can get passed, a coalition of congressional members negatively impacted may oppose the cuts. Resistance is intensified considering the proximity to Election Day. Budget stickiness is built into the political process. The FY22 budget is perhaps the first Pentagon budget that can start inching downward. More than likely, severe cuts aren't in the offing until FY23 or FY24 at the very earliest. That gives time for policymakers to reflect on the scale of the rebalancing between defense and other priorities. In some important ways, congressional control of the Pentagon through many thousands of budget line items restricts its own flexibility. For example, continuing resolutions lock in program funding to the previous year's level until political disagreements can be resolved. The military cannot stick to its own plans, much less start new things. If budget lines were detailed at a higher level, such as by major organization or capability area, then the Pentagon could make more trade-offs while Congress debates. Similarly, if the Pentagon had more budget flexibility, then Congress could more easily cut top lines and allow Pentagon leaders to figure out how to maximize with the constraint during the year of execution. Congress could gain the option to defer the hard questions that can make cuts politically difficult. The Space Force recently released a proposal for consolidating budget line items into higher-level capability areas. It reflects the idea that portfolio-centric management is an efficient method of handling rapid changes in technologies, requirements or financial guidance resulting from economic shocks. Until such reforms are pursued, expect defense budgets to remain sticky. Eric Lofgren is a research fellow at the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. He manages a blog and podcast on weapon systems acquisition. He previously served as a senior analyst at Technomics Inc., supporting the U.S. Defense Department's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/26/will-defense-budgets-remain-sticky-after-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Le secteur de la défense pourra jouer un rôle important pour le rebond économique du pays, estime Christian de Boissieu. Il ne se délocalise pas. Il suscite la création d'emplois qualifiés. Un plan de relance dans la défense permettrait ainsi de renforcer la sécurité et la souveraineté, tout en stimulant l'investissement privé. Par Christian de Boissieu (professeur émérite à l'université Paris-I et vice-président du Cercle des économistes) Publié le 20 mai 2020 à 8h50Mis à jour le 20 mai 2020 à 11h03 La crise actuelle affecte l'économie française avec une ampleur inégalée depuis 1945 : la récession est à la fois imparable et profonde. Tous les secteurs sont touchés. L'ampleur du rebond dépendra, entre autres facteurs, de la capacité de l'Etat à accompagner la reprise, ce qui passe par un plan de relance aux deux niveaux, national et européen. L'enjeu est alors d'identifier les secteurs pertinents. Par hypothèse, le secteur de la défense est orienté vers la sécurité et la souveraineté, au moment même où ces valeurs s'affirment avec force. Il pourrait également jouer un rôle important pour relancer l'économie du pays. Le secteur industriel de la défense ne s'est pas délocalisé ; il n'a donc pas à se relocaliser comme d'autres activités stratégiques. Il crée un grand nombre d'emplois qualifiés. Les entreprises de défense occupent une place centrale dans le système national d'innovation. Elles réalisent, pour leurs activités civiles et de défense, 25 % de la R & D effectuée par les entreprises françaises. Elles ont une activité de dépôt de brevets importante, plusieurs entreprises de défense se classant chaque année dans le top 10 des brevets déposés à l'Inpi, et elles participent grandement à la structuration des réseaux de recherche. Efficience opérationnelle Un plan de relance incluant la défense aurait un impact économique notable, renforcé par la dualité militaire/civil des activités de défense. Les dépenses d'équipements militaires ou de R & D sont des dépenses d'investissement ; elles suscitent des retombées de nature à stimuler la productivité. Pour des raisons stratégiques, les chaînes de production et de recherche sont également plus nationales que dans le reste de l'économie. Les études montrent que ces spécificités se traduisent par un effet multiplicateur des dépenses publiques élevé (multiplicateur d'impact sur le PIB d'environ 2 au bout de dix ans). Elles indiquent également que, loin de les évincer, les dépenses d'équipement militaire ou de recherche dans la défense sont complémentaires des investissements privés. Financer la R & D défense permettrait ainsi de soutenir la recherche française à un moment où celle-ci va être fortement affectée. En outre, la relance par la défense non seulement ne dégrade pas la balance commerciale, à la différence de nombreux secteurs, mais, au contraire, l'améliore en stimulant la recherche, en augmentant l'efficacité des processus de production et en renforçant, aux yeux de l'extérieur, l'efficience opérationnelle du matériel militaire français. Par ailleurs, la base industrielle et technologique de défense a toujours eu une forte dimension locale en contribuant à l'aménagement du territoire et au maintien de l'activité dans de nombreuses zones industrielles sous-dotées. Cette proximité ne serait que renforcée par une relance passant aussi, et sans exclusivité, par la défense. Stimuler l'investissement privé Une telle relance doit d'abord être nationale, mais elle doit s'accompagner d'une initiative de l'Union européenne. C'est l'occasion unique de faire enfin décoller l'Europe de la défense. Ainsi, la proposition initiale d'un budget de 13 milliards d'euros pour le Fonds européen de défense pour les six prochaines années, soit moins de 1 % du budget de l'UE, doit être retenue au moment où les autres continents ne cessent d'augmenter leurs dépenses de défense. Un plan de relance dans la défense permettrait ainsi de renforcer la sécurité et la souveraineté tout en stimulant l'investissement privé, la recherche civile et en provoquant un impact économique important. Autant d'éléments nécessaires dans la période qui s'ouvre. Christian de Boissieu est président du Conseil scientifique, de la chaire Economie de défense, IHEDN et membre du Cercle des économistes. https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/cercle/opinion-un-plan-de-relance-pour-la-defense-1204431

By ARIE EGOZIon May 26, 2020 at 5:26 PM TEL AVIV: The strict U.S warning to Israel to limit ties with China has its first result as the Chinese failed to win a tender for the construction of the giant desalination plant in central Israel. The Palmahim site is in close proximity to Israel's missile test and satellite launch facility. The Soreq 2 facility, with the capability to process 200 million cubic meters of water per year, is expected to be the largest of its kind in the world, increasing the state's desalination capacity by about 35%. The new desalination plant joins five facilities already operating in Israel. Two weeks after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and warned against further Chinese involvement in projects in Israel the Chinese company lost and an Israeli company, IDE. That may lead to a confrontation with the Chinese. Two weeks ago, Netanyahu told Pompeo that the issue was under discussion by the Foreign Investment Committee at the Treasury. The US fears Chinese investments could create dependencies on China's companies and countries, and is working to prevent them. The next challenge: the Chinese and the power companies. In coming days, a decision will be made whether to award the Chinese government company China Harbor's bid for the power plant of Ramat Hovav, part of the huge reform of Israel's once government-owned electricity sector. “The fact that the (Pompeo) visit takes place in these problematic times proves its urgency ” an Israeli source told BD. Pompeo came to Israel with a very strict message – stop all Chinese investment in Israel, either in high tech companies or infrastructure. Israeli officials said the message relayed during Pompeo's visit included a very specific political warning – Israel must stop any action that strengthens the Chinese Communist Party, even if that means canceling planned projects. For context, think of the numerous times President Trump has called the coronavirus the Chinese virus and blamed China for supposedly hiding the truth about the virus' origins. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/israel-pressed-by-us-blocks-first-big-chinese-deal/

“Last year we hired 1,800 people, which was the most hired for 30 years I think,” BIW President Dirk Lesko said. "We probably would have hired 500 or 600 more people last year if we could have.” By PAUL MCLEARYon May 26, 2020 at 5:22 PM WASHINGTON: A round of highly-anticipated talks between Maine's Bath Iron Works shipyard and the local labor union representing many of the company's 6,800 employees kicked off this morning, with both sides hoping to keep one of the nation's most important shipyards humming. The labor negotiations could have a major impact on delivery of Arleigh Burke destroyers to the Navy, which BIW President Dirk Lesko told me are already running six months behind schedule even as he scrambles to hire several thousand new workers. “Last year we hired 1,800 people, which was the most hired for 30 years I think,” Lesko said. “The challenge that we have is that, at least prior to COVID-19, the economy was very good, and there's much less of a manufacturing sector to draw people from here than in other parts of the US. We probably would have hired 500 or 600 more people last year if we could have.” Some 1,800 new employees are being trained up to replace hundreds of older tradesmen who retired over the past several years after being hired during the last shipbuilding binge in the 1980s. Training the new group has taken time, and slowed some projects down. “Those people are leaving in groups, requiring us to replace them in big groups,” Lesko said. The talks come after attendance rates at the shipyard dipped by more than half in the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, Workers stayed home due to local closures and the union pushed back over the use of non-union subcontractors. At one point in late March, only 41 percent of workers showed up for their shifts; by the end of April, only about 45 percent of Local S6 union members had clocked in over the previous month. The delays in work on the destroyers came well before COVID-19 however, and stemmed from a variety of issues: the aging workforce, the time it takes to train skilled workers, and the lingering effects of the delayed work on the Navy's troubled DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyers, which is years behind schedule and has eaten up a good portion of the limited pier space at Bath. Lesko said the workers on the Zumwalt will turn back to their Arleigh Burke work later this year, freeing up labor and space at the pier to begin eating away at those delay times. But the low attendance rates at the shipyard, demands for pay increases, and company's use of some non-union subcontractors for some work are major points of contention between the company and the union. Last week, union leadership posted this on their Facebook page, “it is disheartening that, the very week our membership returns to work as normal after being encouraged to stay out and stay safe due to COVID-19 they are rewarded by subbing out their work. Claiming there were so many people out of work they are now further behind schedule.” Those issues will begin to be hashed out this week as the two sides look to get production of the Navy's workhorse destroyers back on track. Lesko told me the schedule slippages occurred before the COVID personnel shortages, but certainly haven't made up time with so many skilled workers staying home. The company currently has 11 Arleigh Burkes under contract with six under construction, ships that will be a critical part of the Navy's long and troubled effort to build a 355-ship fleet by the end of the decade. “They're in a tough position going into the labor negotiations because the unions will say ‘you can't afford a strike so you'll need to pay,'” naval analyst Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute said. But any extra costs to the company would incur could make the costs to the Navy also go up. “That could make it harder for Bath to compete” for any future destroyer work, Clark said. The company had plans to hire another thousand workers this year before the COVID disruption, which stopped the hiring process. “We had a strong pipeline of people in our training programs in place, and our facilities were coming together in a way that I felt pretty confident about,” Lesko said. He added the company plans to get back to that as soon as possible. While the new workers are being trained and are making their way to the waterfront, the company has dealt with a few stinging defeats. The loss of the $795 million contract to build the first 10 of a new class of guided missile frigates for the Navy to Wisconsin-based Fincantieri Marinette Marine was a major blow to Bath, as the company looks to life after destroyer work runs out in the coming years. The company also lost out on a hard-fought effort to build the Coast Guard's Offshore Patrol Cutters in 2016. Lesko said the company will be in the running for the possibility of a recompete for the frigate contract after the first 10 ships are built, which would put another 10 ships up for grabs. He also expressed hope in talk coming from the Navy that it might be in the market for a new class of large surface combatants in the coming years, but those plans have yet to be fleshed out. Much of the Navy's future plans remain in limbo until Defense Secretary Mark Esper finishes his review of the Navy's force structure plans some time late this summer, which will guide the Navy's shipbuilding blueprint for the coming decades. Given the outcome of the November presidential election and knock-on effects of the ballooning federal deficit, however, those plans could change again next year as priorities, and budgets, change. These uncertainties are deeply worrying for the Navy and the Pentagon leadership, as they can ill-afford to lose a shipyard at a time when ship construction and repair are already stressed after years of budget cuts and reduced building rates. The Navy has ambitious plans for a new class of Columbia nuclear-powered submarines, modernizing Virginia-class subs, finishing up the Ford-class aircraft carriers and starting work on the new frigate program. There is also talk of building new classes of smaller amphibious ships and supply vessels to help the Marines in their own transformation efforts. This will take multiple shipyards working on multiple projects at once. In the near-term, there's widespread concern over how shipyards are dealing with local manufacturing shutdowns as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Navy acquisition chief James Geurts told reporters last week that the Navy has seen around 250 suppliers close due to the pandemic in the past two months, but he's “seeing many more of those open than close,” in recent days. His office is tracking 10,000 companies and suppliers, and of those 250, all but 35 are open now, he said. “While we haven't seen major impacts to current work yet on most of our shipbuilding programs, we are keeping a very close eye on downstream work to make sure that [if] a part we were expecting in September doesn't show up, we understand how to adjust to that,” he said. Lesko said that he hasn't seen much disruption at his shipyard. “There have been modest levels of disruption, a relatively small number of suppliers” that have temporarily shuttered, he said. “We've been able to work through all of that with our existing supplier base. I would not want to leave you with the impression that I don't think the supply base in some cases is fragile, but at least at this point, they have been able to support us and have done quite well.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/bath-shipyard-scrambles-as-thousands-retire-months-behind-on-destroyer-work-says-president/

London May 26, 2020 - Leonardo and Thales are proud to announce the first successful firings of the Thales ‘Martlet' Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) from Leonardo's AW159 Wildcat helicopter. The firings were conducted as part of the UK MoD's Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) programme and demonstrated the integration of the Martlet onto the AW159 platform. This represents a major milestone for the programme and will enable this high-end capability to enter service with the Royal Navy later this year. The firing trials were conducted from 27th April to 21st May 2020 and despite the current COVID-19 situation, Leonardo and Thales were able to support the UK Ministry of Defence by completing this critical activity. All of the teams involved had to adopt strict distancing procedures, in some cases having to find new ways of working, in order to make sure that the trials could go ahead. It is a testimony to the professionalism of those involved that these trials were successfully completed under such challenging and novel circumstances. “This major milestone demonstrates that the combination of the AW159 Wildcat and Martlet missile will be a flexible and effective tool for the Royal Navy. Next year the Wildcat fleet will embark on Carrier Strike Group missions with HMS Queen Elizabeth on its maiden operational deployment. As the only British company to design and manufacture helicopters on-shore, we're extremely proud to be equipping the UK Armed Forces with world-beating sovereign capabilities.” said Nick Whitney, Managing Director of Leonardo Helicopters (UK). “The successful live firings of the Thales LMM Martlet from the AW159 Wildcat is a key milestone in the programme, delivering a significant step-change in capability for the platform. LMM Martlet will ensure that the Wildcat has the best-in-class offensive capability to protect HMS Queen Elizabeth and her task group during her maiden operational deployment next year. With each platform capable of carrying up to 20 Martlet, the Wildcats deployed with the task group will be a significant deterrent to anyone wishing to interfere with UK interests.” said Philip McBride, General Manager, Integrated Airspace-protection Systems, Thales UK. In July 2014, Leonardo signed a contract with the UK Ministry of Defence to integrate, test and install the MBDA Sea Venom (heavy) and Thales LMM (light) missile systems onto Royal Navy AW159 Wildcat helicopters, a programme called Future Anti Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW). The FASGW (light) part of the programme has now seen the LMM, with its associated launcher and airborne laser guidance unit, successfully integrated into the Leonardo AW159 Wildcat sensor, displays and avionics systems. The LMM provides a step-change in capability for the Royal Navy which, in the maritime environment, faces a major challenge in engaging smaller, fast-moving, asymmetric threats, due to their high mobility, their small thermal and radar signatures and the severe background clutter encountered. The LMM is capable of surmounting these issues where traditional electro-optic and radar guidance systems do not provide the certainty of hit required. On-board the AW159 Wildcat platform, the LMM Martlet could also allow operators to engage air targets such as UAVs and other maritime helicopters. The launchers are mounted to the AW159 via the new Leonardo Weapon Wing, developed at the Company's design and manufacturing facility in Yeovil and first trialled last year. Each weapon wing will be able to carry either ten Martlet or two Sea Venom missiles and generates additional lift for the helicopter in forward flight, reducing demands on the main rotor. The twin-engine multi-role AW159 is able to conduct missions ranging from constabulary to high end warfighting where it has the capability to autonomously detect, identify and attack targets on land and at sea, including submarine threats. The high-performance platform has state-of-the-art systems, including a Leonardo Seaspray multi-mode electronically-scanning (E-scan) radar, and integrated electronic warfare Defensive Aids Suite (DAS). Over 50,000 flight hours have been logged by the helicopter. The AW159 has also been chosen by the British Army, the Republic of Korea Navy and the Philippine Navy as a new maritime operator of the helicopter. About Leonardo Leonardo, a global high-technology company, is among the top ten world players in Aerospace, Defence and Security and Italy's main industrial company. Organised into five business divisions, Leonardo has a significant industrial presence in Italy, the United Kingdom, Poland and the USA, where it also operates through subsidiaries such as Leonardo DRS (defense electronics), and joint ventures and partnerships: ATR, MBDA, Telespazio, Thales Alenia Space and Avio. Leonardo competes in the most important international markets by leveraging its areas of technological and product leadership (Helicopters, Aircraft, Aerostructures, Electronics, Cyber Security and Space). Listed on the Milan Stock Exchange (LDO), in 2019 Leonardo recorded consolidated revenues of €13.8 billion and invested €1.5 billion in Research and Development. The Group has been part of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) since 2010 and became Industry leader of Aerospace & Defence sector of DJSI in 2019. Contact Ph. +39 0632473313 (Press Office) Ph. +39 0632473512 (Investor Relations) leonardopressoffice@leonardocompany.com ir@leonardocompany.com About Thales Thales is a global technology leader combining a unique diversity of expertise, talent and cultures. Our architects design and deliver decisive technologies for decisive moments in five markets: Defence & Security, Digital Identity and Security, Aerospace, Space, and Ground Transportation. In 2018, the company generated revenues of €19 billion with 80,000 employees in 68 countries. With its 30,000 engineers and researchers, Thales has a unique capability to design, develop and deploy equipment, systems and services that meet the most complex security requirements. Thales in the UK is a team of over 6,500 experts, including 4,500 highly skilled engineers, located across 10 key UK sites. In 2018, Thales UK's revenues were around £1.3 billion. Each year Thales invests over £575 million into its UK supply chain, working with over 2,000 companies. With a heritage of over 130 years, Thales in the UK understands the importance of developing skills for the future, which is why they have over 400 apprentices and graduates across the UK. Thales is committed to supporting its people, and continuously developing talent, and highly skilled experts. www.thalesgroup.com > Lightweight Multirole Missile - LMM (Martlet) is a new lightweight, precision strike, missile, which has been designed to be fired from airborne and ground tactical platforms in surface, ground attack and air defence roles; thus the multirole element of the name. The missile, sealed in its canister and designed to be maintenance free for 15 years' storage, consists of a two-stage motor, warhead and dual mode fuse, together with guidance electronics and a highly accurate control actuator system. A combined fragmenting and shaped charge warhead provides proven lethality against a wide range of conventional and asymmetric light skinned and armoured threats. The unique LMM laser guidance beam, generated from a sophisticated Laser Transmitter Unit (LTxU), projects low power coded signals direct to the LMM in flight thus ensuring precision engagement, command override and immunity against countermeasures. In the naval domain, the system has been designed to counter the challenging threats ranging from Jet Skis and Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FIAC) to larger maritime combatants. In 2019 Thales and the Royal Navy conducted a series of successful LMM (Martlet) ship-launched firings from a Type 23 frigate against a representative target set. These firings confirmed that LMM (Martlet) offers a mature, low-cost, high value solution to strengthen the inner layer defence capability of surface ships through re-use of current investment and the commonality and modularity between the helicopter and ship-based systems. Contact Thales Media Relations – Adrian Rondel, Media Relations, adrian.rondel@uk.thalesgroup.com, +44 (0)7971414052 View source version on Leonardo: https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/press-release-detail/-/detail/26-05-2020-leonardo-aw159-wildcat-helicopter-conducts-first-successful-firings-of-thales-martlet-lightweight-multirole-missile-lmm-

"The answer isn't 'we've just gotta go fast'," said one critic. By THERESA HITCHENSon May 26, 2020 at 4:10 PM WASHINGTON: The latest version of the Air Force's long-overdue report to Congress on space acquisition reform fails to address a number of foundational questions, critics say, including: go fast to do what; who gets to decide the what; and who is accountable if things go pear shaped? DoD is asking Congress to cut legislative strings and approve special powers to streamline space acquisition programs worth billions — pushing the need for speed to ensure the US military's technical edge over China and Russia, as first reported by colleague Sandra Erwin. The proposed changes are focused mainly on ways to get the Space Force out from under current acquisition rules, both those imposed by Congress and internally by DoD regulations. They also are “mostly a rehashed list of things that every service has asked for since time immemorial,” one national security space veteran told Breaking D, with a virtual eye roll. Or in the words of the recently-released teaser for the upcoming Netflix comedy “Space Force”: “Your attitude seems to be: ‘Give us money and don't look'.” “The problem is, I think, it's asking for a lot of trust from Congress that in space in particular hasn't been necessarily warranted to date,” said Joshua Huminski, director of the National Security Space Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress. A space acquisition report, due to Congress on March 31, was delivered on May 20. Air Force acquisition head Will Roper called a press briefing last Friday to discuss it, only to abruptly cancel a couple hours later with no explanation. A congressional aide told Breaking D on Friday afternoon that they could not release the version of the report transmitted to Congress because it was not a final version; and an Air Force spokesperson later confirmed that — well after business hours on Friday evening and before the long Memorial Day weekend). So, it's not really the final version. The spokesperson said: “The Department of the Air Force continues to work with DoD and interagency partners to finalize the Space Force Alternative Acquisition System report. An initial version of the report was delivered to the Hill, but we anticipate delivering the final report to Congress soon.” As one space analyst notes wryly: “Not exactly a clean rollout.” The nine proposed reforms are required because “current space threats demand a shift to a system that more broadly delivers agile solutions to meet an ever-evolving technical baseline and integrate into an open architecture,” according to the current report language. Three of the recommendations will require legislative changes; one will require agreement from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Specifically, the nine recommendations address the following acquisition authorities for the Department of the Air Force and the Space Force: Unique Acquisition Category (ACAT) Thresholds, Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) Definition, and Milestone Decision Authority Delegation for Space Systems. “Efficient Space Procurement (ESP)” Codification for the DAF/USSF. USSF-Unique “New Start” Notification Procedures. Budget Line Item Restructure. Modified JCIDS [Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System that sets program requirements] Approach for Space Systems. New Policy Regarding Key Decision Point and Reporting Requirements for Development, Fielding, and Sustainment of Space Systems. “Useable End Item” Determination Authority. Separate USSF Topline Budget. USSF-Unique Head of Contracting Activity (HCA). As an example of bending the current DoD rules for the Space Force, the “Budget Line Restructure” asks Congress for authority to move money around by combining individual programs within in a large “portfolio” of similar efforts — an effort unlikely to win congressional approval, if past attempts are a guide. Numerous critics noted it goes directly against the intent of Congress when it mandated in 2016 that DoD develop a Major Force Program to allow better tracking of both the macro military space budget and individual projects from year-to-year via a specific, standardized “program element number” in budget documentation. Further, as Breaking D readers know, the report punts on one of the key mandates included in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): to create a Space Acquisition Executive separate from the Air Force acquisition authority, a position now held by Roper. The NDAA requires that the Air Force appoint a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration. That person, the act said, “will “synchronize with the Air Force Service Acquisition Executive on all space system efforts, and take on Service Acquisition Executive responsibilities for space systems and programs effective on October 1, 2022.” The SAE is to oversee the Space and Missile Systems Center, the Space Rapid Capabilities Office (SpRCO), and the Space Development Agency (SDA) — all of which currently have separate acquisition authorities and lines of oversight. Roper has fought tooth and nail against a fully separate SAE since it was proposed by Congress, according to numerous DoD sources even threatening to resign if it is created outside his purview. Sources close to the debate say that Gen. Jay Raymond, who currently is double hatted as head of the Space Force and Space Command, also does not want to see a change in the status quo that would put another layer of acquisition oversight in the mix. Thus, the current version of the draft report simply states that Roper will hold SAE authority for now. This, several sources said, in reality is a place holder signaling that DoD intends to recommend in future that Congress essentially ditch the idea. “We want to ignore your direction on the separate SAE [Space Acquisition Executive] – thanks, but we know better,” the former national security space official summed up. “And it ain't a signal – it's a shot across the bow.” “On face value, I think it does seem to suggest they are trying to avoid the separate Space Acquisition Executive, which when combined with the bucketing of money is unlikely to be well received by Congress,” Huminski said. “Congress is going to want some balance here, at least I think,” he added. “If the Space Force wants the authority to move money around within the portfolios, they are going to need to provide some measure of confidence to Congress that it is being done in an efficient and transparent manner, which could be the SAE—at least someone accountable for those money moves.” Failure to restructure the space acquisition organization, critics point out, leaves open the critical question of how DoD plans to fix the problem of lack of coordination with the Army and Navy on user equipment, for which they have acquisition authority. (We're looking at you, GPS III.) While the Space Force in the near term will comprise only Air Force personnel either seconded or transferred, the expectation is that eventually it will include Army and Navy personnel as well. A number of critics further charge that the requested changes do not sufficiently address the fact that previous space program cost overruns and schedule delays can be attributed to lack of coherent, coordinated and disciplined management at the program level within Space and Missile Systems Center itself, not due to outside factors. “All of the changes they've asked for are external to the Space Force,” said one former DoD official, rather than taking a hard look at past program management. “Instead it's: ‘Congress has to change; Ellen Lord [DoD acquisition czar] has to change; the JROC [Joint Requirements Oversight Council] has to change.” “The answer isn't ‘we've just gotta go fast',” the official added. “One of the biggest challenges is the proverbial acquisitions rubber meeting the road—unless the Space Force changes what they are buying, changing how they buy it may not matter,” Huminski explained. “If the same architectures and same vehicles and same capabilities are bought, just faster, what was the point of changing anything at all?” DoD sources defend the proposal, saying that Congress asked for, and expected to receive, ‘bold recommendations' on how to change the current space acquisition system. Noting that there are many conflicting pressures, one DoD source said that concerns about transparency and who does what exactly have been overtaken by concerns that the Space Force “be empowered to go fast, innovate, and achieve the space dominance wanted by POTUS.” Another government official keeping tabs on the issue said sympathetically that in some ways, “they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.” While some in Congress likely will be annoyed by the recommendations push to get out from under current regulations, the source said, others would have complained loudly if DoD failed to move from the status quo. Spokespeople for a number of key House and Senate members involved in defense oversight did not respond to requests for comment. However, DoD sources and several analysts with close Hill ties said Congress is most likely to be concerned by the recommendations that infringe upon Congress's own powers. For example, members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are almost certain to protest the recommendation that assumes approval if Congress doesn't respond to “New Start” notifications within 30 days. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/space-acquisition-speed-may-not-fix-problems-critics-say

The U.S. Army is leading what looks to be the biggest rotorcraft program in history. Called Future Vertical Lift, it could eventually buy thousands of aircraft to replace over a dozen different helicopters in the joint inventory. FVL, as it is usually called, has been a long time coming. So long that technologies now commonplace in commercial aviation such as “fly-by-wire” flight controls are nowhere to be found in the Army fleet. So long that the Army was forced to retire all of its aged scout helicopters even though it lacked a replacement. The U.S. Army is leading what looks to be the biggest rotorcraft program in history. Called Future Vertical Lift, it could eventually buy thousands of aircraft to replace over a dozen different helicopters in the joint inventory. FVL, as it is usually called, has been a long time coming. So long that technologies now commonplace in commercial aviation such as “fly-by-wire” flight controls are nowhere to be found in the Army fleet. So long that the Army was forced to retire all of its aged scout helicopters even though it lacked a replacement. The bad news is that if Future Vertical Lift falters the way some past efforts have, much of the U.S. rotorcraft industry might falter with it. FVL isn't the only game in town, but it is by far the biggest. If production of legacy rotorcraft ceases to make room for new ones and then FVL fails to deliver, industry might not have enough cashflow to sustain essential skills and suppliers. Army leaders are acutely aware of the potential industrial-base fallout. I know that because earlier this month my colleagues and I at the Lexington Institute had a lengthy exchange with the two top Army officials managing FVL. They are Brigadier General Walter T. Rugen, leader of the service's cross-functional team for vertical lift, and Mr. Patrick H. Mason, the Army's program executive officer for aviation. I thought we would spend most of the conversation discussing the Army's need to “overmatch” future adversaries in the air. But early on, Gen. Rugen observed that Future Vertical Lift “isn't just about overmatch, it's about the industrial base.” It was a theme he kept coming back to throughout the exchange, noting that top Army leaders have been briefed on the consequences for industry if FVL doesn't come to fruition. Apparently those consequences are potentially grave, particularly at lower levels of the supply chain, where fragile, single points of failure support the entire sector. That phrase—single points of failure—was used frequently in an interagency assessment of the defense industrial base prepared early in President Trump's tenure. It detailed how a domestic industrial complex once dubbed the “arsenal of democracy” has gradually hollowed out in recent decades as manufacturers moved offshore. There has been concern about the loss of skills and suppliers in the rotorcraft industry for some time. The U.S. Army is by far the biggest operator of rotorcraft in the world, but since the Cold War ended 30 years ago it has mainly been upgrading what it already had rather than developing new helicopters. It isn't easy to sustain design and engineering talent when your top customer never buys anything genuinely new. So in addition to addressing the increasingly harsh operational environment in which Army Aviation will need to wage future wars, FVL must also provide most of the resources needed to revitalize a key part of the domestic aerospace industry. So far that effort is progressing nicely, using paperless design techniques, digital modeling and prototyping to develop strikingly new rotorcraft that will take the place of retired Kiowa scouts and Black Hawk assault helicopters in the future. The service has recently made awards to two industry teams for each effort, which will competitively develop solutions for final down-selects in a few years. The service has also awarded funding for developing a new helicopter propulsion system, and has made steady progress in developing an electronic architecture for future combat rotorcraft. One way of controlling costs and assuring interoperability on the battlefield is to equip diverse airframes with the same hardware and software for functions such as communication and navigation. It will likely take another 8-10 years before new rotorcraft developed by FVL begin reaching the operational force in large numbers, but managers have been thinking since the program's inception about how to make them reliable and maintainable for users. A big part of the affordability challenge unfolds after production, when 68% of life-cycle costs are incurred. One facet of this challenge is how and where to provide maintenance for the future fleet. There is a long-running debate in military circles about how best to sustain rotorcraft in the operational fleet, with warfighters and legislators usually favoring organic depots over industry sources for much of the maintenance. But doing that requires access to data and intellectual property generated by the companies that build the airframes. This inevitably creates tension with industry, which is as eager to protect its intellectual property in the rotorcraft sector as in other sectors. Intellectual property is a crucial source of competitive advantage. However, Rugen and Mason emphasize that FVL is trying to strike a reasonable balance between military and industry needs in securing access to sensitive information. As one of them put it, “The Army recognizes industry's need for cashflow and adequate returns. It doesn't want to undermine industry's business model.” So while they have carefully analyzed the impact of intellectual property access on the ability of the Army's organic support base to do its job, they are mindful of the need not to impair the capacity of suppliers to make money. This is not the way the Army has typically looked at such matters in the past. Its usual approach has been to find the best deal for warfighters and taxpayers, and let industry fend for itself. But what comes through in a conversation with FVL managers is a recognition that the business pressures faced by companies must be taken into account if the Army is to have an adequate industrial base for its aviation initiatives in the future. They are also working hard to find overseas partners who might be customers for the rotorcraft that FVL ultimately produces. The bigger the international footprint that Future Vertical Lift has, the cheaper each aircraft will likely be for the Army and the more business there will be for American industry. But what Rugen and Mason would most like in the near term is a multiyear funding commitment from Congress to keep FVL on track, because if the program falters the outlook for both Army Aviation and the domestic rotorcraft industry will be bleak. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/05/26/army-fears-if-future-vertical-lift-falters-serious-fallout-for-industry-might-follow