News

By: Sen. Jim Inhofe Since World War II, the American people have believed our military has had the best of everything, but the technological superiority that kept us 20 years ahead of our competitors has rapidly diminished. In some cases, we're already behind. By 2030, unless we pursue “urgent change at significant scale,” as former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis put it, it's likely the U.S. will face an enemy with superior weapons, superior equipment and superior capabilities. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our strategic competition with China. China used to just steal our technology. Now, through heavy investment, they are improving it. The result? China is outpacing the U.S. in key areas like hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies — not to mention conventional capabilities. China isn't the only one. Technological development is accelerating across the globe, expanding to more actors and changing the very nature of war. We can't afford to let our advantage erode further. It is up to the Department of Defense and Congress to make sure that the defense-industrial base becomes, as the National Defense Strategy demands, an “unmatched 21st century National Security Innovation Base.” If we want to “sustain security and solvency,” we need to consider wholesale change to industry culture and its interface with the Department of Defense, shed outdated management processes, and reimagine a resilient supply chain that mitigates 21st century risks. This begins with software, which is foundational to military capability. The DoD and its traditional hardware-dominant industry partners have been behind on software in almost every way — talent, tools, development and delivery processes. Software innovation has failed in countless DoD programs, including the Ford-class carrier, the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System and the GPS next-generation operational control system. Instead of taking the Pentagon for granted as an endless source of cash flow, partners must refocus their attention on delivering secure capability that actually works. Next, the Department of Defense needs to continue to expand capacity — prioritizing speed of delivery and adapting its systems to maximize value and output. For too long we have been slow to expand our stockpiles of fifth-generation weapons required to fight peer adversaries. The second production line for JASSM-ER cruise missiles is a good start toward building the capacity needed to retain advantages that will make any enemy think twice before attacking. We must do the same for other fifth-generation weapons, including air-to-air missiles. Shipbuilding, including aircraft carriers, surface ships, submarines and our logistics fleet, is another area where our capacity is severely limited. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, which recently surpassed ours in size, is on track to reach 400 ships in 2025 and is nearly self-sufficient for all components. Size of the fleet isn't a sole consideration. We've focused on ensuring the capability of our fleet remains unmatched and bolstering suppliers of critical components, but we must also improve the construction performance of lead ships in new classes to maintain and build upon our capability advantage. The last thing we want is a fair fight. Innovation is best done at the subsystem level through a rigorous engineering-based process centered on building knowledge through full-scale prototypes, which can then inform ship design. We are eager to work with the Navy to identify and fund more of these prototypes, which will serve as the building blocks of the future fleet. We also must accelerate innovation. Recent defense authorization legislation encourages the DoD to streamline acquisition, take a business-minded approach to contracting, and tap into nontraditional suppliers and public-private partnerships. This must continue. Dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one. The DoD has looked to Silicon Valley, but we are competing with Chinese influence there as well, and the Pentagon has often proven an impossible customer due to its antiquated bureaucracy. Any technological improvements will be meaningless if vulnerable to being infiltrated or stolen. Recent legislation continues support for the DoD as it assesses and mitigates risks to its supply chains posed by adversaries. Both the government and contractors need to cooperate on and use modern verification tools to identify trusted suppliers and manufacturers, as well as fix vulnerabilities. To make these tools useful, the DoD must first establish a working digital model of its suppliers. Lastly, while we must continue to invest in the domestic, organic industrial base, it's important to remember that we can't take on China and Russia alone — which is why the National Defense Strategy emphasizes our network of allies and partners. We must remove unnecessary barriers to industrial cooperation that degrade our collective competitive edge. We do not have to make a false choice between investing domestically and in our allies — we can do both. Under our National Technology and Industrial Base partnership with Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, we can develop a more diverse, resilient industrial base, secure our supply chains, and become a “five eyes for defense procurement.” It's in our best interest to ensure our allies can leverage our technological advantages and we can leverage theirs. Without a strong national security innovation base, the Pentagon cannot implement the National Defense Strategy. Congress' job is to put the appropriate, tailored policy in place and provide sufficient, predictable resources to help the industrial base meet these challenges. Together, we can harness the power of American innovation to ensure that we are able to win the wars of the future. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/sasc-chairman-we-must-build-the-national-security-innovation-base-our-defense-strategy-requires/

ByEd Adamczyk Dec. 2 (UPI) -- Raytheon has been awarded a $74.7 million contract for services on the U.S. Navy's amphibious transport dock ships. Under the new deal, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems will provide design agent engineering and technical services for the overall management, development, testing, troubleshooting, repair, configuration, maintenance and fleet sustainment of fielded networks and associated network user systems and clients, the Department of Defense said on Friday. The indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract pertains to operational Landing Platform Dock, or LPD 17-class, amphibious transport dock ships, the first of which was the USS San Antonio, commissioned in 2006. The ships, 682 feet long in the case of the USS San Antonio, specialize in delivering troops to a war zone by sea, although they also carry helicopters. Eleven LPD-17 class ships are currently active in the U.S. Navy, with 26 more planned. The majority of the work will be performed at Raytheon's San Diego facilities and is expected to be complete by December 2024. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/12/02/Raytheon-wins-747M-Navy-contract-for-landing-platform-dock-work/9381575311238

By: Nathan Strout General Dynamics will provide sustainment services for the ground system for the Navy's narrowband satellite communication systems over the next decade, the company announced Nov. 27. The sole-source $732 million contract was awarded Nov. 8 and work expected to be completed by Nov. 2029. The Mobile User Objective System is the Navy's next generation narrowband satellite communications system, providing secure voice, video and data communications to military users all over the globe. MUOS was built to replace the Ultra High Frequency constellation, although the new system will support the legacy system for now. According to General Dynamics, just one MUOS satellite can provide four times the capacity of the entire legacy system. The MUOS ground segment is made up of four ground station facilities located around the world. According to the General Dynamics web site, each ground station has three free-standing antennas to receive radio call relayed through the MUOS satellites. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the MUOS satellites, while General Dynamics was selected to build the ground system. “MUOS will provide our warfighters with the ability to communicate securely, anywhere, anytime, with voice clarity and data transmission speed similar to using a civilian cellphone,” said Manny Mora, vice president and general manager for General Dynamics' space and intelligence systems. “This capability delivers a whole new level of connectivity for troops in the field." On Oct. 16, the Navy announced that MUOS was deemed operationally effective following its months-long multiservice operational test and evaluation over the summer. With that designation, the new system is ready to be used in unrestricted operation. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/c2-comms/2019/12/02/navy-awards-732m-contract-for-satellite-ground-systems

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The U.S. Navy on Monday awarded its largest-ever shipbuilding contract to General Dynamics Electric Boat for construction of nine Virginia-class attack submarines, eight of which will have 84-foot section that boosts the boat's strike missile capacity. The contract for the Block V Virginias, worth $22.2 billion, could grow by another $2 billion if the Navy exercises an option for a 10th boat. The contract is for two fewer boats than the 11 proposed by the fleet in this year's budget submission. “A lot of hard work across the whole team to structure the contract in such a was as to balance risk between the government and the shipbuilder,” said James Geurts, the Navy's top acquisition official, in a roundtable with members of the media to announce the contract signing. “If the shipbuilder delivers on target, the multi-year savings will be 16.5 percent, or $4.4 billion in savings. So, it's a pretty important day for us.” Guerts, the assistant Secretary of the Navy for research, acquisition and development, said that when you add government furnished equipment into the contract, the total swells to about $35 billion. The first boat in Block V, SSN 802, is currently under construction but does not have the Virginia Payload Module. The next boat, 803, will have VPM. All of the boats will have an upgraded acoustics suite. In the briefing, Navy officials said that six of the boats would be constructed at Electric Boat's partner yard, Huntington Ingalls Newport News, and three would be built at Electric Boat. The 10th boat would go to Electric Boat if the Navy exercised the option. The move to put most of the work in Newport News was done to balance the increased workload at Electric Boat with the start of the Columbia class, the next generation of ballistic missile submarines slated to begin construction this year. In a statement, Electric Boat President Kevin Graney said the contract provides stability for his shipyard. “This contract allows for our shipbuilding team, out suppliers and our employees to plan ahead so that we can continue to deliver submarines of unmatched quality, stealth and lethality,” Graney said. Dave Bolcar, Newport News' vice president of submarine construction, likewise hailed the contract as a means of stability in the submarine industrial base. "Today's contract maintains the Virginia-class build rate that provides continued stability to our workforce and to the 5,000 suppliers that will support submarines for the next decade,” he said. "This contract also continues the two per year construction cadence essential to sustaining production efficiencies, while ensuring our national security and the Navy's continued undersea superiority.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/02/navy-awards-largest-ever-shipbuilding-contract-to-electric-boat-for-new-attack-submarines

NAVY General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. (GDEB), Groton, Connecticut, is awarded a $22,209,893,409 fixed-price-incentive, multi-year modification to previously-awarded contract N00024-17-C-2100 for construction of nine Virginia-class submarines, eight with Virginia Payload Module (VPM), from fiscal 2019 to fiscal 2023. The contract modification includes spare material and an option for one additional submarine with VPM. If the option is exercised, the cumulative value of this contract will increase to $24,097,439,556. The awarded amounts include previously-announced material awards (including long-lead-time material and economic ordering quantity material) totaling $3,197,633,908. This contract modification is for the construction of the fifth block of Virginia-class submarines by GDEB and major subcontractor Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division, inclusive of design support and all efforts necessary to test and deliver each submarine. GDEB will continue to subcontract with Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division. Work will be performed in Newport News, Virginia (25%); Quonset Point, Rhode Island (21%); Groton, Connecticut (20%); Sunnyvale, California (8%); Norfolk, Virginia (1%); Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (1%); and Annapolis, Maryland (1%), with other efforts performed at various places throughout the U.S. below one percent (22%), and other places outside of U.S. below one percent (1%). Work is expected to be completed by August 2029. If the option is exercised, work is expected to be completed by February 2030. Fiscal 2017 and 2019 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy (SCN) funding in the amount of $3,155,793,018 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year - funding: fiscal 2019 SCN (95%); fiscal 2017 SCN (5%). The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc., Houston, Texas, is awarded a $14,070,093 for modification of the second option under an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for base operations support services at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Kingdom of Bahrain. After award of this option, the total cumulative contract value will be $44,363,284. The work to be performed provides for, but is not limited to, all management, supervision, tools, materials, supplies, labor and transportation services necessary to perform security operations, galley services, unaccompanied housing, facility management, emergency service requests, urgent service, routing service, facilities investment, custodial, pest control service, integrated solid waste, grounds maintenance, utility management, wastewater, operate reverse osmosis water treatment system, chiller and transportation at NSA Kingdom of Bahrain. Work will be performed in NSA Kingdom of Bahrain. This option period is from December 2019 to November 2020. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Fiscal 2020 operation and maintenance (Navy) contract funds for $4,159,063 for non-recurring work will be obligated on individual task orders issued during the option period. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Europe Africa Central, Naples, Italy, is the contracting activity (N62470-17-D-4007). L-3 Technologies Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, is awarded a $9,999,144 firm-fixed-price modification (P00012) to a previously-awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-18-C-1030) to procure eight Common Data Link Hawklink AN/SRQ-4 systems for the MH-60R aircraft. Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, Utah, and is expected to be completed in December 2022. Fiscal 2020 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $9,999,144 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control, Orlando, Florida, has been awarded a $988,832,126 definitization modification (PZ0010) to previously-awarded contract FA8681-18-C-0021 for Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon critical design review, test and production readiness support. The contract modification will definitize the contract terms, specifications and price. Work will be performed at Orlando, Florida, and is expected to be completed Dec. 31, 2022. The total cumulative face value of the contract is $988,832,126. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds are being obligated in the amount of $23,000,000 at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity. GTA Containers Inc., South Bend, Indiana, has been awarded a $9,404,953 delivery order (FA8534-20-F-0003) against previously-awarded contract FA8533-16-D-0001 for collapsible fuel tank production. Work will be performed at South Bend, Indiana, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2022. The total cumulative face value of the contract is $24,507,563. Fiscal 2019 other procurement funds in the amount of $9,404,953 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity. ARMY Fisher Sand and Gravel Co., Dickinson, North Dakota, was awarded a $399,962,000 firm-fixed-price contract to design-build border infrastructure along the southern perimeter of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Yuma County, Arizona. Five bids were solicited with three bids received. Work will be performed in Yuma, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2018 military construction, defense-wide funds in the amount of $268,072,900 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, Oregon, is the contracting activity (W912PL-20-C-0004). InSap Services Inc.,* Marlton, New Jersey, was awarded a $41,636,459 modification (BA02 44) to contract W91QUZ-11-D-0017 to provide personnel with technical experience to sustain the Army's Logistics Modernization Program. Work will be performed at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2020 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $7,961,225 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Illinois, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY Unisys Corp., Reston, Virginia, was awarded a single award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity firm-fixed-price contract for Unisys Operating System 2200 capacity services. The place of performance will be at current Defense Information Systems Agency data centers. The contract ceiling is $80,457,160. The solicitation was issued as an other-than-full-and-open-competition action pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S. Code §2304(c)(1) and Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1, with only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. Proposals were solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov), now known as beta.SAM.gov website (www.beta.sam.gov). Only one proposal was received. The period of performance (PoP) consists of a one-year base period and two one-year options. The PoP for the base year is Dec. 1, 2019, through Nov. 30, 2020, and the option years follow consecutively through Nov. 30, 2022. The Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, is the contracting activity (HC1084-20-D-0002). (Awarded Dec. 1, 2019) DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY AvKare Inc., Pulaski, Tennessee, has been awarded a maximum $11,727,127 firm-fixed-price requirements contract for potassium chloride tablets. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. This is a one-year base contract with four one-year option periods. Locations of performance are Tennessee and Minnesota with a Dec. 1, 2020, performance completion date. Using customers are Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Services and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2D2-20-D-0081). UPDATE: ADS Inc.,* Virginia Beach, Virginia (SPE8EH-20-D-0001), has been added as an awardee to the multiple award contract for fire and emergency services equipment, issued against solicitation SPE8EH-16-R-0001, and announced March 21, 2019. *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2030017/source/GovDelivery/

Murray Brewster · Reports of human rights violations are pushing trading countries like Canada into a corner In both war and diplomacy, language matters. And if one thing was evident from the flood of words coming out of the Halifax International Security Forum last weekend, it's that Western democracies, despite their vows to uphold human rights, have no common language to define their view of — and relationship with — China. The world is rapidly approaching a crossroads with Beijing, a point where nations will have to decide whether to treat the burgeoning superpower as a trading partner, a rival — or an active threat. Secret Chinese documents were released to media outlets recently which show how the Muslim minority Uighur population is being locked up in mass detention camps and subjected to "systematic brainwashing." Beijing's violent response to pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong revived grim memories of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. So is China a competitor or an adversary? 'Naive' about China's motives The answer to that question seems to depend on which country's leaders are answering it — how heavily Beijing has invested in their nations' markets, how badly their businesses want access to that vast Chinese market. "For many years, folks were naive about Chinese motivations," U.S. National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien told journalists during an on-the-record briefing in Halifax over the weekend. "In the past, the relationship with China was driven solely by trade, driven solely by economics." O'Brien describes China, rather antiseptically, as a "near-peer competitor," not as an adversary. Still, there were points during the briefing when O'Brien's language became decidedly adversarial — even dystopian — as he described the high-tech incarceration and forced re-education of as many as one million Uighurs. In the context of the dispute over allowing Chinese telecom giant Huawei into Western 5G wireless systems, O'Brien asked whether Western Europe would have allowed the Soviet Union into their countries to build railroads at the height of the Cold War. A new Cold War? On the record, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also was not prepared to describe China as an adversary — but he was decidedly mushy when asked how we should describe it. The confusion on display in Halifax over the question of whether the West has arrived at the threshold of a new Cold War was widespread. U.S. Admiral Phillip Davidson, the commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, would not describe the current moment as "a new Cold War" but warned that the West needs to be prepared to continually "call out" China when it crosses internationally accepted lines. Many say some of those lines have been crossed already — through the arbitrary detention of the Uighurs (which China attempts to justify with the claim that it's fighting Islamic extremism) and through its program of constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea, which has been condemned by an international tribunal at the Hague. So, again ... rival or adversary? 'Feeding ... a monster' Lady Pauline Neville-Jones, a former top British diplomat and adviser to ex-U.K. prime minister David Cameron, said China has signalled it intends to become an "unequalled" high-tech nation. Beijing has said it's prepared to pour real money into achieving that goal — with Western nations supplying the world-class post secondary institutions that are training the next generation of Chinese engineers. "We are feeding something that could be a monster," she told the Halifax forum. "So what do we do about it? As long as we pursue our relations with China, largely separately on the basis of short-term national interest, I think we are giving away the game." It took Western allies several years to come with up a comprehensive Cold War strategy following the Second World War, she pointed out. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-u-s-sajjan-uighur-halifax-international-security-forum-1.5372856

By: Jill Aitoro The strategy for reading tea leaves of the year to come is naturally anchored in the lasting events of the year just passed. So then let us consider 2019. The year was, in many respects, one of messiness. The already tense relationship between Turkey and NATO allies got worse, leading to the decision by the U.S. to kick the country out of the F-35 program. High-profile program struggles plagued some of the largest defense companies in the world. Political turmoil led to leadership shakeups both in the U.S. and across the pond. Instability in the industrial base made advancements in technology by adversaries all the more troubling. But there were also some signs of progress. Modern warfare capabilities — from hypersonics to artificial intelligence — transitioned from a footnote for only some to the everyday vernacular of most. More experimentation emerged in techiques for system development and acquisition. And around the world, countries from various regions grew more earnest in their desires to expand their influence and investment in global defense. What can we predict, then, based upon this, for 2020? Global relations will continue to shift, no longer defined by existing alliances but rather by individual behavior and more self-serving demands. Elections stand to turn the current state of political affairs on its ear, whether it be for better or for worse. And competition will grow more fierce, driven by a shrinking industrial base and the fact that defense companies will need to look beyond the U.S. to find the most sought-after programs with the biggest potential payout. Obviously, there is a lot we don't know. Will NATO flounder or regain its footing? Will election results drive allies closer together or farther apart? Will defense budgets go up or down? And will the increasing use of hybrid tactics reshape both the forces of today and the systems of tomorrow? We asked leaders from around the world to provide their perspective. See what's on their minds here in Outlook 2020. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/

By: Alessandro Profumo Rapid changes are taking place around the world, both at the geopolitical and technological level, which are having an extremely disruptive impact on the defense industry and its customers, namely governments. For its part, technological innovation has reached a pace never seen before. Growing digitalization, big-data processing, robotics, autonomous systems, biotechnology, hypersonics, directed energy: These are just a few examples of innovations that revolutionize industry and governments' approaches to defense and security issues. In some cases, innovations on the commercial side are driving the technological evolution in the defense sector, with increasingly wider applications from a dual-use perspective. There is a real two-way street. The role of government is crucial in developing a long-term investment strategy and identifying the sovereign technologies necessary to maintain a technological advantage over new peers and emerging actors, in symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. Threats to peace and global stability do not solely originate in traditional domains (air, land, sea), but materialize in space and cyberspace, more difficult to protect, as they both lack precise boundaries. Increasing defense spending is a positive signal, especially when coupled with a strong vision and clear objectives aimed at the development of the right capabilities in an international cooperation framework. The national defense industry, as a strategic asset of its own country, must be able to capture technological innovation where it is produced, finding effective ways of accessing new ideas and solutions. Secondly, it must be able to manage the dynamics between long development and production cycles that characterize this sector, and technological innovation's fast pace. The sense of urgency must regard delivering what is needed, when needed, providing the end user with the maximum benefit and anticipating and adapting to changes, while triggering an ever-growing contamination across industries, governments, startups and academia. A deep interconnection between the defense industry and its customers, working in close synergy, facilitates flexible and adaptable structures capable of responding quickly to new and complex emergencies. In this perspective, the closer one works with the customer — throughout the entire product life cycle — the more this reverberates positively at the industry level. The shared awareness rising from this cooperation will enable industry to make wise and focused investment decisions in order to develop products and solutions that best fit future market requirements. Bearing in mind that technology alone is not enough, true success in creating a resilient defense industry also lies in the ability to attract and retain highly specialized human capital as well as involving the supplier base in innovation processes. A shared road map is, therefore, a priority — industry and governments, working together, side by side, committed to building a safer world. Alessandro Profumo is the CEO of Leonardo. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/ceo-of-leonardo-a-twoway-street-benefits-everyone

By: Jorge Domecq The European Union's strategic autonomy in defense is on everybody's lips since it was put forward as a long-term goal in the EU's 2016 Global Strategy. Yet, it remains unclear what it means in practice and how it would impact NATO and our trans-Atlantic relationship. This has led to a mostly academic debate about the concept's end goal, fueled by doubts and fears stoked from both sides of the pond. However, the risk of too much abstract talk is that we get distracted from the concrete action needed to bring us closer to, what in my view, is a laudable objective. It is time we approach strategic autonomy more positively and look at it as a constructive project — not something directed against NATO, the United States or anybody else. It's about putting EU member states in a position where they can autonomously develop, operate, modify and maintain the full spectrum of defense capabilities they need. It's about giving the EU the option and tools — political, operational, technological, industrial — to take military action whenever needed, either together with partners (notably NATO) wherever possible, or separately if necessary. Instead of undermining trans-Atlantic trust and security, as some fear, a more robust and autonomous European defense will ultimately lead to a stronger NATO. It is in the interest of our trans-Atlantic partners to have a more capable and efficient EU in defense. The U.S. wants Europe to take on its fair share of burden in defense? A stronger and more credible European pillar in NATO will contribute to that. The EU's ambition, as stated in the 2016 Global Strategy, is to reach “an appropriate level of strategic autonomy” in order to “ensure Europe's ability to safeguard security within and beyond its borders.” However, it takes more than ambition and political will to get there. Strategic autonomy presupposes at least two things. First, that our member states' armed forces have at their disposal the full spectrum of military assets that, taken together, could enable the EU to take military action, and on its own if necessary. Second, that the functionality and usability of these assets is not restricted by any technological or political caveats controlled by non-European actors. Today, admittedly, this is not the case yet. Hence the need to invest more, and better, in defense. The good news is that we are moving in the right direction, both in terms of “more” and “better.” But more spending does not automatically guarantee more efficiency or interoperability. To achieve that, we must invest better through cooperation: from joint priority setting to the development, procurement and deployment of cutting-edge defense capabilities. Prioritization is the foundation stone on which all subsequent steps must build. It is already in place: the Capability Development Plan, developed through the European Defence Agency and revised in 2018, lists member states' joint priorities for the years to come. One of them targets cross-domain capabilities that can contribute to strategic autonomy. Using the priorities as a compass will ensure efforts and funding are spent on assets that are really needed and contribute to making the EU more efficient in military terms. The Coordinated Annual Review on Defence, another new tool to boost joint capability planning and development, will help keep the focus on agreed priorities. To achieve strategic autonomy, the EU must also be able to master cutting-edge technologies and their integration into defense products. That's why it is so crucial that it acquires, maintains and develops the technological knowledge and industrial manufacturing skills required to produce the defense equipment it needs. Those key strategic activities have to be preserved and strengthened if we want to turn the goal of strategic autonomy into reality. EDA, which is the EU hub for defense innovation and collaborative capability development, has for years been involved in this critical work. The agency identifies critical, overarching strategic research areas and other key strategic activities underpinning the EU's strategic autonomy. The aim is to identify, and then support, must-have technologies and industrial capacities, without which strategic autonomy isn't possible. Artificial intelligence, micro- and nanotechnologies, or unmanned and autonomous systems are only a few examples of such critical disruptive technologies that are reshaping defense. It's through concrete action — not political and academic rhetoric — that we can make progress toward strategic autonomy. At the same time, we must ensure coherence and avoid any unnecessary duplication with NATO, which will continue to be the cornerstone of collective defense for its members. EU strategic autonomy isn't necessarily just around the corner, but it is attainable. The closer we get to it and the more additional defense cooperation it triggers, the better. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/head-of-european-defence-agency-eu-strategic-autonomy-is-an-opportunity-not-a-threat