News

By: Tom Kington , Andrew Chuter , and Sebastian Sprenger ROME, LONDON and COLOGNE, Germany — The U.S. and European shipbuilding industries lead largely separate lives against the backdrop of a massive Asian naval buildup, but some trans-Atlantic projects still manage to thrive. The building of warships has always been a prime example of nations nurturing a highly specialized industry deemed so crucial that outside economic forces cannot be allowed to intervene. And while some European nations have begun to think about pooling shipbuilding forces on the continent, analysts and industry executives in Europe say the wall separating the U.S. and European naval markets remains high. Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said. “The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven't given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added. At the same time, the U.S. market has been relatively closed off to European shipbuilders, though there is a chance that could change somewhat with the Navy's Future Frigate program. “It's a bit like two different planets,” said Sebastian Bruns, head of the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University in northern Germany. The reflex to buy only American-made warships is especially strong in the current political climate, he added. The sheer number of ships needed on each side of the Atlantic creates a natural differentiator, according to Bruns, who spent time working U.S. naval policy as a House staffer on Capitol Hill. He said the Navy tends to prefer no-frills designs made for maximum war-fighting power in a great powers competition, while Europeans have taken to building vessels with a kind of peace-maintenance role in mind, affording a greater level of automation and comfort for the crew, for example. One British naval executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the lack of trans-Atlantic industrial touch points wasn't limited to market access, arguing that cost-effectiveness was also an issue. “Despite the problems we have and the programs that don't go exactly according to plan ton for ton and capability for capability, the U.K. manages to build and deliver surface ships at a much lower cost than the United States,” he said. “The U.S. shipyards know they would have difficulty competing in the region, particularly if you are talking about yards that have built a good track record. Naval Group, Fincantieri, Damen Shipyards, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems — these are yards that have been competitive and build with export experience behind them. They are already ahead of the game and I do think it comes back to the cost base, I think it is difficult for the United States to build as cost-effectively as the Europeans,” the executive argued. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/14/an-ocean-apart-few-naval-vendors-manage-to-pierce-us-and-european-protectionism

By: Justin Lynch The U.S. government wants to boost its artificial intelligence capabilities or risks being left behind by the private sector and China. In the last two years, that's meant new AI initiatives from the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the intelligence community. Now, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity is requesting information about research efforts on “cutting-edge machine learning techniques.” IARPA posted the formal request for information Dec. 4. The deadline for industry to submit information is Jan. 17. “Of specific interest is the respondent's knowledge of, and experience implementing, current, cutting-edge machine learning techniques,” the intelligence community's research arm said. Respondents are required to have top secret clearances to work on the project, according to the IARPA listing. In addition to its deep learning program, IARPA leaders want information about research into “future computing systems” that can self-learn. Such a move could have implications for improving government cybersecurity. “The need for real-time (or near-real-time) analysis of massive amounts of heterogeneous data in this new era of explosive data growth has dramatically broadened the application space for advanced computers,” IARPA said. “The current volume and variety of data are already beginning to exceed the ability of today's most advanced classical systems to deliver optimal solutions.” Most cyber threat detection platforms use some form of artificial intelligence to create warning indicators, according to public and private sector officials. However, the U.S. government is behind the private sector when it comes to use of AI, said James Yeager, the public sector vice president at cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike. “There is, by design, a more staggered type of approach to some of these advances in technology in the public sector, and as a result, the government is going to be behind the private sector,” Yeager said. IARPA has a “very high-risk-but-high-reward approach to solving complex problems. They take a lot of time and take a lot of resources,” said Yeager. “But If they can come out of that research project with a silver bullet, it is going to benefit everyone.” Andrew Laskow, a senior manager at Blue Prism, which provides AI products to federal government and defense agencies, said that in the U.S. government many people are “looking to AI for problems that they cannot solve.” “There is still a misunderstanding at the highest levels of what AI can and cannot do,” Laskow said. Public and private sector officials warn that AI-backed threat network indicators can overload users and create too many warnings. Michael McGeehan, head of business development at Blue Prism, described intelligent automation being broken down into the “thinking side” and the “execution side.” The artificial intelligence platform is the “thinking side” that makes decisions and is analogous to the human brain. On the other hand, robotic processing automation is the “execution side” that carries out tasks, like an arm or a leg. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2019/01/12/with-china-looming-intelligence-community-backs-ai-research

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Navy's surface fleet moves into 2019, a radical shift is coalescing among its leaders: a move away from a model that has driven the way the service has built its ships for decades. When the Navy built its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, installing the Aegis combat system into the hull meant a large suite of hardware — computers, servers, consoles and displays — designed and set up specifically to run Aegis software. Any significant upgrades to the suite of systems already installed, or to the Aegis system in general, required cutting a hole in the ship and swapping out all the computers and consoles — a massively expensive undertaking. And what's more, Aegis isn't the only combat system in the fleet. Raytheon's Ship Self-Defense System runs on many of the amphibious ships and the Ford-class carriers. Both classes of littoral combat ship run different combat systems, one designed by Lockheed Martin and the other by General Dynamics. And in regard to the ships themselves, there are multiple, siloed systems that don't feed into the main combat system. If Navy leaders get their way, that's going to change. What the surface fleet wants is a single combat system that runs on every ship, and runs everything on the ship, and that doesn't mind what hardware you are running so long as you have the computing power for it. The goal here is that if a sailor who is trained on a big-deck amphibious ship transfers to a destroyer, no extra training will be necessary to run the equipment on the destroyer. “That's an imperative going forward — we have to get to one, integrated combat system,” Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, the chief of naval operations' director of surface warfare, said in a December interview at the Pentagon with Defense News. Boxall describes the current situation to an integrated combat system as the difference between a flip phone and an iPhone. When buying a flip phone, most of the hardware and software are already included, leaving you with a limited ability to upgrade the phone. And if you want to run more advanced applications, you need a new phone. Instead, Boxall wants the combat systems to run like the iPhone. “For us to get faster, we either have to keep going with the model we had where we upgrade our flip phones, or we cross over the mentality to where it says: 'I don't care what model of iPhone you have — 7 or X or whatever you have — it will still run Waze or whatever [applications] you are trying to run,” he said. On a ship, that means that if the Navy adds a new radar, missile or laser, the software that runs the new equipment is developed as an application that interfaces with the single integrated combat system, the way Waze integrates with the iPhone or Android software. This has the benefit of having everything linked into the central nervous system for operators in the combat information center, sonar control, on the bridge or in the ship's intelligence-gathering center. It also means that new systems are quickly integrated, skipping the expensive process of ripping out old servers and consoles. And it means the companies that develop the myriad combat systems in service today — say, Raytheon or Lockheed Martin — won't have a lock on developing software for Navy ships because the Navy wants the combat system to be developed with interfaces that are accessible by outside application developers. “We need to continue down the path to be more aggressive and get a lot more competition in the open-architecture space,” Boxall said. “I wouldn't call it completely open, but as open as we can be, and then share that with people who can, if they are properly classified and secured, they should be able to come into a common space and apply their expertise to develop products that we may or may not want to buy. That's where I'd like to get to.” The vision The grand vision for this operating system from the deck-plates perspective would be the merging what are, today, disparate functions into one unified system, said Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant who heads The FerryBridge Group. One of the areas in which this segmentation creates limitations falls between the combat information center — which collects and displays information gathered by ships' sensors — and the intelligence hub known as the Ship's Signals Exploitation Space — which uses top-secret sources to collect data on the theater in which the ship is operating. “We need to break down the barrier between CIC and SSES, and the barrier is both a physical bulkhead and computing systems and platforms,” McGrath said. “That's what an integrated combat system is: You have the traditional combat system function, and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance functions — non-real-time and [top-secret information] functions — merged into one multilevel security-protected computing platform.” In that scenario, if SSES receives information that three Iranian F-14 jets took off from Bushehr Air Base, a watchstander in the combat information center with the proper security clearance could see what information SSES has on the aircraft and their mission while stripping out top-secret information such as sources and methods that SSES needs to protect. And once CIC has a radar track associated with that intelligence, all SSES data will get merged into it so decision-makers in combat have the necessary intel at their fingertips. But the logic applies to all the ship's sensors, not just intelligence collection data. The unified combat system would associate every piece of sensor data with the track being displayed in CIC, McGrath said. Everyone connects to a single system that gives every watchstander all the information they need on every track, both real-time and non-real-time data. “The integrated combat system includes all mission areas,” he said. “It's electronic warfare, it's anti-submarine warfare — we don't segment out air and missile defense and electronic warfare, they are all just applications within the combat system. The Navy has to stop thinking of SESS, sonar, combat, electronic warfare and the bridge as different and separate elements. They have to be part of the whole.” Staggering costs There's a number of obstacles to getting the surface fleet on a unified system, but one that could be insurmountable: the staggering cost of replacing the fleet's outdated computer hardware. The Common Source Library, developed for the Navy by Lockheed, begins moving the Navy down this path of a single, unified combat system. The CSL is essentially the iOS of an iPhone: The Navy can use CSL to program applications that run sensors and weapons systems. So, if the Navy has a new missile system it wants to run, the software application to run it will be designed to run off of the CSL — and ships with the CSL will be able to rapidly integrate it, just like downloading the latest navigation or gaming software for a smartphone. But the issue is that CSL requires specific hardware to function, said Tony DeSimone, chief engineer of Lockheed Martin integrated warfare systems and sensors, in a roundtable with reporters late last year. “One of the challenges the Navy has, the constraints, is the hardware and infrastructure to support a [common integrated combat system],” DiSimone said. “So while we are marching forward with the capability to be open and take in apps, there is an antiquated architecture out there and there is hardware that doesn't support it. ... You can't run [integrated operating] systems today on UYK-43s. You're just not going to be able to do it. So let's gut them and put some blade servers in, and we'll work with you.” The UYK-43 was once the Navy's standard 32-bit computer for surface and submarine platforms. The issue with replacing a fleet full of ancient computers that run old combat systems is the astronomical cost. For example, when the Navy converted the cruiser Normandy into an Aegis Baseline 9 ship, which includes updated displays and blade servers, it cost the service about $188 million and nearly a year offline. When you stretch that over dozens of surface combatants in need of updated computers, you start eating up billions of dollars and lose decades of operational availability. So while CSL does give the Navy an interface with which developers can create applications to run various systems, it's all for naught if the service doesn't have the right equipment. “Our Common Source Library has made us radar-agnostic,” said Jim Sheridan, vice president of Lockheed Martin's naval combat and missile defense systems. “We're also weapons-agnostic. The blocker is that we are not infrastructure-agnostic.” Furthermore, even if the Navy did back-fit all the surface ships with updated servers, you'd need to get various companies to play nice in the sandbox by sharing proprietary information for the benefit of a unified combat system. Ultimately, however, the Navy must affect a paradigm shift that decouples the computer suites that run its combat systems from the system itself, Boxall said. “You can either upgrade the existing ships on that model, which is expensive and you rip the ship apart to do it — cost hundreds of millions of dollars and a year offline — or you design the ship with the idea that you are going upgrade the hardware over its time, and you separate the hardware/software layers,” Boxall said. “We know Aegis,” he added. “What we don't know [is how to] upgrade Aegis at the pace I think we need moving forward in the future. We don't have a structure in place and a process by which we do that upgrades with speed. “When we buy Aegis, it's kind of flip-phone technology: You buy the software and the hardware together. And you can upgrade it, it's just hard to do. If we don't go to a more adaptable model, we are not going to be able to pace the threat.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/01/14/the-future-of-the-us-surface-fleet-one-combat-system-to-rule-them-all/

Kellstrom Defense Aerospace (KDA) on Monday said it has acquired Williams Aerospace and Manufacturing (WAM) in a deal that increases its manufacturing capabilities and product portfolio. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Both companies are based in California. http://www.defensedaily.com/kellstrom-defense-acquires-williams-aerospace

Vous êtes une start-up ou une PME/ETI européenne... Vous êtes un industriel, un intégrateur ou un laboratoire de recherche européen... Vous disposez de solutions technologiques dans les domaines de la surveillance par drone, des applications mobiles, de la biométrie, des systèmes de communication (phonie, transmission de données...), du traitement de l'image et de la vidéo, du Big Data, de l'intelligence artificielle, du design d'interfaces numériques centrées sur les usages, etc. Vous disposez de compétences ou de briques technologiques innovantes dans les domaines de l'hypervision, de la fusion, du traitement, de l'analyse, d'aide à la prise de décision, de moyens de conduite d'opération de sécurisation, de la diffusion et du partage de données complexes structurées et non structurées (images, textes, données chiffrées, géolocalisées...)... Venez participer au Défi PRODEF, coordonné par l'agence de l'innovation de défense et soutenu par la Direction générale de l'armement (DGA) et l'armée de l'Air Venez découvrir les missions et les enjeux de protection défense d'une base aérienne Démontrez en quoi votre solution permet d'améliorer l'efficacité et l'agilité du système de sécurisation d'une base aérienne, en utilisant des moyens mobiles déployables facilement Proposez vos solutions innovantes pour les futurs développements des systèmes de défense des bases aériennes https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/actualite/participer-au-defi-prodef-systemes-de-protection-defense-des-bases-aeriennes

Sikorsky [LMT] is upgrading the U.S. military's fleet of UH-60 Black Hawks to fight corrosion, increase the number of available flight days for the rotorcraft in Afghanistan and other deployed areas, and reduce operations and maintenance costs. http://www.defensedaily.com/sikorsky-upgrading-uh-60-black-hawks-prevent-corrosion

January 14, 2019 – Valcartier, QC – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces Today, Families, Children and Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos, on behalf of Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan, visited members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) at 2nd Canadian Division Support Base Valcartier to see Canada's new logistics trucks delivered to the base. These trucks support Canada's defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, in delivering the modern equipment the women and men of the CAF depend on to do their jobs. Support vehicles like these trucks form the backbone of ground transportation for our Regular and Reserve forces. They are at the heart of nearly every domestic and international CAF operation, moving critical equipment, personnel and supplies to wherever they need to be. Whether helping Canadian communities deal with severe flooding or other national disasters, or supporting NATO operations in Latvia and throughout Eastern Europe, these new trucks will serve our women and men for decades to come. Of the over 1500 trucks purchased, nearly 450 will be based in Quebec, to be used by CAF units, including Reserves. The trucks will come in five variants ranging in use and size from regular cargo to cargo trucks with a material handling crane. The cabs can also be swapped out for an armoured cab for use in high threat environments. The purchase of these trucks is subject to Canada's Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy, which means that for every dollar the government spends on major defence purchases, the winning contractor must put a dollar back into Canada's economy. Through this policy, the government's purchasing power is being used to support innovation and create well-paying middle-class jobs. Quotes “Through our defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, we are providing the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment they need to do their jobs. Logistics trucks are essential component for how our Canadian Armed Forces members conduct their important work. That is why I am pleased to see these new and modern vehicles being delivered to Valcartier and other locations across Canada to replace and modernize the current fleet of medium weight logistic trucks that have reached the end of their service life.” – Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan “I am very pleased to see these new trucks being delivered to Valcartier for use by a number of Quebec-based units. Whether for overseas operations or to provide support to local communities during spring flooding, these trucks will help our Canadian Armed Forces members get the job done." – Families, Children and Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos Quick facts In July 2015, the Government of Canada awarded two contracts to Mack Defense, valued at a total of $834 million, to deliver new trucks, trailers, armour protection systems and in-service support. Across Canada, more than 1500 trucks, 300 trailers, and 150 armoured protection systems are expected to be delivered over the next two years. The new trucks have the ability to carry up to 9.5 tonnes. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/01/new-logistics-trucks-delivered-to-valcartier.html

BORDEAUX, 13 janvier (Reuters) - La ministre des Armées Florence Parly indique dans un entretien à paraître lundi dans Sud-Ouest qu'elle annoncera le lancement d'un nouveau programme de Rafale pour un montant de près de 2 milliards d'euros pour les forces aériennes françaises. La commande, qui sera annoncée lundi lors de sa visite aux usines Dassault Aviation de Mérignac (Gironde), porte sur des Rafale au standard F4 dont les premiers exemplaires seront livrés dès 2023. “Le Rafale F4 bénéficiera d'une connectivité, d'une fiabilité et d'une capacité à contrer les menaces renforcées. Ces améliorations amèneront cet appareil au niveau des avions de dernière génération et permettront à nos forces aériennes de maintenir leur supériorité dans des espaces de plus en plus contestés”, précise Florence Parly. Le contrat de près de 2 milliards d'euros est une bonne nouvelle pour le constructeur aéronautique français qui emploie à Mérignac 1.400 personnes et pour ses sous-traitants. “La loi de programmation militaire prévoit également, en 2023, une commande de 30 nouveaux avions pour des livraisons qui s'échelonneront entre 2027 et 2030. Entre-temps, l'usine Dassault sera bien occupée puisqu'elle livrera à l'armée de l'air des Rafale en version 3 à hauteur de 28 exemplaires entre 2022 et 2024. Nous en avons déjà reçu trois en 2018”, indique la ministre. Florence Parly rappelle les grands contrats déjà signés pour la vente de Rafale à l'Inde, le Qatar et l'Egypte, permettant à l'usine Dassault de tourner à plein régime jusqu'en 2021 et que “plusieurs appels d'offres vont être lancés, en particulier en Suisse et en Finlande”. “Il y a de nouvelles possibilités. Nous y travaillons activement”, dit-elle. (Claude Canellas, édité par Julie Carriat) https://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idFRKCN1P81H5-OFRTP

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen he Canadian Army's new armoured vehicles have been plagued by rollovers and fires, the latest in a series of problems to affect the $600-million fleet. Since April 2014, there have been 10 incidents when Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles have tipped on to their sides, six where they have rolled over completely, and four where they have caught fire. Pat Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at the Department of National Defence, told Postmedia there have been no serious injuries as a result of the incidents. But the problems are not the first to hit the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles or TAPVs. The TAPV program has “experienced a number of significant technical issues, particularly affecting vehicle mobility,” then-defence minister Rob Nicholson was told in August 2014. There have been problems with the suspension, steering and other items on the vehicle, according to a briefing document released under the Access to Information law. The technical issues significantly delayed the test program for the vehicles, the document added. “These accumulating incidents, which relate to the vehicle's ability to travel distances on medium cross country terrain, led the project office to conclude the existing testing could no longer continue.” The Conservative government announced the TAPV contract in 2012 as part of its re-equipping of the Canadian Army. Canada bought 500 TAPVs from Textron, a U.S.-based defence firm, at a cost of $603 million. The TAPV is a wheeled combat vehicle that will conduct reconnaissance and surveillance, security, command and control, and armoured transport of personnel and equipment. Finn said as a result of the various incidents further quality assurance tests are being done. “It's kind of high off the ground so it can be more agile,” he explained about the vehicle. “(But) it brings with it a high centre of gravity.” “It may be it's about training and understanding the vehicle,” Finn added. None of the vehicles have been written off because of the incidents, according to the Canadian Army. “Upon review of the major TAPV incidents, it has been identified that the most common contributing factors of these incidents tends to be human error due to limited familiarity time operating the vehicles,” the army noted in an emailed statement to Postmedia. The army pointed out that investigations into the incidents did not reveal any design or mechanical faults. “Primary reports on the majority of these incidents (rollover and tip-overs) were attributed to a combination of factors, such as operator experience, the vehicle's high centre of gravity, weather conditions, and/or vehicle speed,” the email noted. The army did not provide any explanation for the four fires on the TAPVs. The army noted that it is considering limits on the speeds the vehicles can operate at as well as “rollover hazard mitigations” and “recommendations such as the use of new technology to enhance experience for new drivers and crew.” The army did not provide further details on those new technologies or initiatives. The TAPV project will cost taxpayers a total of $1.2 billion, which not only includes the vehicles but also includes the building of infrastructure to house them, as well as the purchase of ammunition and service support for the equipment. The initial problems with steering and other issues delayed the delivery of the vehicles. After those were dealt with, the army had to contend last year with concerns about brakes and the distance the vehicles needed to stop. The TAPV is a heavy vehicle and requires longer stopping distances at higher speeds than most new drivers are familiar with, noted DND spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier in July 2018. The fleet of TAPVs have been distributed across seven bases and 24 units throughout Canada. The Canadian army has said it expects to declare full operational capability by mid-2020, following training of all operators. TAPVs were first deployed in spring 2017 to assist communities affected by the flooding in Quebec. dpugliese@postmedia.com Twitter.com/davidpugliese https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/fires-and-rollovers-plague-canadian-armys-600-million-fleet-of-new-armoured-vehicles