News

Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's secret intelligence fund received $23.1 billion in appropriated funds for the recently concluded fiscal 2020 — the highest total for the account in nine years. The increased funding for the Military Intelligence Program, or MIP, comes after FY19 saw a rare decrease in year-over-year spending power for the classified account. The funding, which includes both base dollars and overseas contingency operations money, “is aligned to support the National Defense Strategy,” per a four-sentence statement from the Pentagon. The department annually waits until after the fiscal year ends to announce how much money it was given for the fund. The Pentagon requested less than $23 billion for the MIP in its FY20 budget request, meaning Congress gave the fund a slight increase over requested amounts. “The department has determined that releasing this top line figure does not jeopardize any classified activities within the MIP,” the statement read. “No other MIP budget figures or program details will be released, as they remain classified for national security reasons.” According to a 2019 Congressional Research Service report, the MIP funds “defense intelligence activities intended to support operational and tactical level intelligence priorities supporting defense operations.” Among other uses, these dollars can be spent to facilitate the dissemination of information that relates to a foreign country or political group, and covert or clandestine activities against political and military groups or individuals. MIP money also partly goes to U.S. Special Operations Command to pursue “several current acquisition efforts focused on outfitting aircraft — both manned and unmanned, fixed and rotary wing — with advanced ISR and data storage capabilities that will work in multiple environments,” according to CRS. MIP funding went as high as $27 billion in FY10 and sat at $24 billion in FY11. But by FY15, it hit a low point for the decade, at $16.5 billion, per CRS. The MIP then had three straight years of growth, going from $17.7 billion in FY16 to $18.4 billion in FY17, and to $22.1 billion in FY18. It dipped in FY19 to $21.5 billion. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/10/21/secretive-military-intelligence-program-budget-hits-nine-year-spending-high/

WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES Deloitte & Touche LLP, Arlington, Virginia, has been awarded a $52,928,501 firm-fixed-price, labor-hours and time and material contract. The contract provides audit remediation, risk management, financial management and reporting, data analytics and related services for the Deputy Chief Financial Officer Program within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). When funds become available, fiscal 2021 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $9,216,636 will be obligated for this requirement. The expected completion date is Oct. 25, 2025. Washington Headquarters Services, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HQ0034-21-F-0002). NAVY Whitney, Bradley & Brown Inc., Reston, Virginia (N00189-21-D-Z001); Systems Planning & Analysis Inc., Alexandria, Virginia (N00189-21-D-Z002); and Metron Inc., Reston, Virginia (N00189-21-D-Z003), are awarded an estimated $35,478,966 multiple award for cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to provide analytical, engineering, scientific and programming services in support of the program objective memorandum of the Chief of Naval Operations in the areas of manpower, fleet readiness and logistics capabilities. The contracts will run concurrently and will include a 60-month ordering period and are expected to be completed by October 2025. Work will be performed at various contractor supplier locations (94%); and Washington, D.C. (6%). The percentage of work at each contractor facility cannot be determined at this time. Fiscal 2021 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $150,000 ($50,000 on each of the three contracts) will be obligated to fund the contracts' minimum amounts and funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Individual task orders will be subsequently funded with appropriate fiscal year appropriations at the time of their issuance. This contract resulted from a full and open competitive solicitation through the Navy Electronic Business Opportunities and Federal Business Opportunities websites pursuant to the authority set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation 16.504, with six offers received. Naval Supply Systems Command, Fleet Logistics Center, Norfolk Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Golden Manufacturing,* Golden, Mississippi, has been awarded a maximum $10,629,109 modification (P00010) exercising the first one-year option period of an 18-month base contract (SPE1C1-19-D-1160) with three one-year option periods for various types of trousers and slacks. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is Mississippi, with an Oct. 23, 2021, ordering period end date. Using military services are Navy and Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2021 through 2022 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2389920/source/GovDelivery/

Par Le Figaro avec AFP Les dépenses des pays européens de l'Otan et du Canada en matière de défense vont augmenter pour la sixième année consécutive en 2020, avec un tiers des pays atteignant l'objectif des 2% du PIB, a indiqué mercredi le secrétaire général de l'Otan, Jens Stoltenberg. «Cette année sera la sixième année consécutive de hausse des dépenses militaires par les alliés européens et le Canada, avec une progression réelle de 4,3%. Nous nous attendons à ce que cette tendance se poursuive», a déclaré Jens Stoltenberg lors d'une conférence de presse, à la veille d'une réunion par visioconférence des ministres de la Défense de l'organisation. L'Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord a publié mercredi ses chiffres sur les dépenses de défense de ses membres. D'après ces données, qui ne sont que des estimations pour 2019 et 2020, les États-Unis devraient encore fournir de très loin le plus gros effort budgétaire, avec des dépenses représentant 3,87% de leur PIB. Les pays de l'Otan, Allemagne en tête, sont budgétairement sous la pression du président américain Donald Trump qui leur réclame un effort plus massif pour arriver à l'objectif de dépenses égales à 2% du PIB. Sur les 30 pays membres, 10 se situeraient au-dessus de ce seuil en 2020, dont la Grèce (2,58%), le Royaume-Uni (2,43%), la Pologne (2,30%) et la France (2,11%). Ils n'étaient que trois l'an dernier (États-Unis, Grèce et Royaume-Uni). L'Allemagne resterait encore en dessous (1,57%), tout comme le Canada (1,45%). Les ministres de la Défense des pays de l'Otan doivent se réunir jeudi et vendredi par téléconférence. Parmi les sujets abordés, sera discutée «la juste répartition du fardeau» militaire, a indiqué M. Stoltenberg. https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/otan-les-depenses-militaires-europeennes-progressent-encore-en-2020-20201021

Jen Judson BAE Systems is teaming up with Elbit Systems of America to develop combat vehicle technology, according to an Oct. 21 BAE statement. “The arrangement is focused on validating and integrating new technologies on combat vehicle systems to deliver advanced warfighting capabilities,” the statement reads. On the eve of the start of the Army's second attempt to hold a competition to replace its Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), the announcement could signal BAE's plans to take a shot in the new effort. BAE Systems — Bradley's manufacturer — opted out of the previous OMFV competitive effort because the company felt the requirements and timeline to design, develop and field a new vehicle wasn't realistic. And the Army ended up withdrawing its first solicitation in that competition because just one competitor was able to deliver a physical bid sample within the required timeline. BAE has been quiet about whether it plans to invest its time and money into the new OMFV competition, but a partnership with Elbit, which is a leader in advanced turret solutions, could be a sign that it will participate this time around. “The teaming arrangement will explore crew automation, vehicle protection systems and other defensive and offensive systems for integration into turrets of various cannon calibers and supporting weapon systems for combat vehicles,” according to the statement. “BAE Systems and Elbit America are investing in transformational combat vehicle technologies and turret solutions that will greatly enhance the lethality and survivability of next-generation combat vehicles for the U.S. and international militaries,” Jim Miller, director of business development at BAE Systems, said. “Our relationship demonstrates a commitment to provide our customers with solutions for future battlefields based on our collective combat vehicle expertise.” The day before the announcement, Rheinmetall put out a statement saying it was teaming with Textron Systems to pitch its Lynx41 vehicle for the OMFV competition. Rheinmetall made an unsuccessful attempt last year to enter the OMFV competition with Raytheon as a US-based partner, but said it was unable to get its single Lynx vehicle in existence to the United States by the Army's due date to deliver a physical bid sample. General Dynamics Land Systems is also expected to compete in the OMFV competition. It was the only company to deliver physical bid sample in the last go-around. The Army is not requiring a bid sample in the new OMFV competition. The Army put out a draft solicitation in July and plans to release its request for proposals to industry in December. The service plans to request whitepapers and then choose five prime contractor teams to design rough digital prototypes. The service will then award up to three contracts for a detailed design and prototype phase that will include options for low-rate initial production. One vendor will be selected to go into production. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/10/21/bae-teams-up-with-elbit-on-combat-vehicle-tech/

No matter who is sitting in the Oval Office Jan. 21, whether it is Donald Trump or Joe Biden, the overall Pentagon budget drafted by the White House will probably look about the same. Fate of the U.S... https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/us-presidential-candidates-will-face-stagnant-defense-budget

The Canadian Press OTTAWA — Canada has taken a big leap closer to meeting its promise to the NATO military alliance to spend a larger share of its economy on defence thanks to an unexpected assist from COVID-19. New NATO figures released Wednesday show that largely thanks to the pandemic, Canada is poised to spend the equivalent of more of its gross domestic product on defence this year than at any point in the past decade. That is because the alliance expects the Liberal government to hold Canadian defence spending steady even as COVID-19 batters the country's economic output. Yet defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says the results are unlikely to appease the United States, as Canada continues to fall far short of its promise to NATO to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. "I think they'll be pleased to see positive momentum," Perry said of the U.S., "but it doesn't resolve their concern about where we are." All NATO members, including Canada, agreed in 2014 to work toward spending the equivalent of two per cent of their GDP — a standard measurement of a country's economic output — on defence within the next decade. The promise followed complaints from the U.S. about burden-sharing among allies and broader concerns about new threats from Russia and China as the two countries increased their own military spending. NATO and the U.S. have repeatedly criticized Canada for not meeting the target, with President Donald Trump in December calling Canada "slightly delinquent" during a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. His predecessor, Barack Obama, also called out Canada over its defence spending during an address to Parliament in 2016. The U.S. spends more than any other NATO member on defence, both in terms of raw cash and as a share of GDP. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday said the continued importance of increasing military spending would be discussed when defence ministers from across the alliance meet this week. The NATO figures show that Canada is poised to spend 1.45 per cent of its GDP on the military this year. That is not only a big jump from the 1.29 per cent last year, but the largest share of the economy in a decade. It also exceeds the government's original plan, laid out in the Liberals' defence policy in 2017, to spend 1.4 per cent of GDP on the military by 2024-25. That is when NATO members were supposed to hit the two-per-cent target. Yet the figures show the expected increase isn't the result of a new infusion of cash for the Canadian Armed Forces this year as spending is expected to hit $30 billion, up just over $1 billion from 2019. Rather, NATO predicts Canadian GDP will shrink by about eight per cent this year as COVID-19 continues to ravage the economy. The fact Canadian defence spending is expected to remain largely steady despite the pandemic is noteworthy, particularly as there have been fears in some corners about cuts to help keep the federal deficit under control. The NATO report instead appears to lend further credence to recent assertions from Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, Defence Department deputy minister Jody Thomas and others that the Liberals are not readying the axe. Canada also remained 21st out of 29 NATO members in terms of the share of GDP spent on the military as other allies also got a surprise boost from the economic damage wrought by COVID-19. At the same time, Perry said the government has yet to lay out a timetable for when it plans to meet the two per cent target. Military spending is instead expected to start falling after 2024-25, according to the Liberal defence plan. Despite having agreed to the target during the NATO leaders' summit in Wales in 2014, successive Canadian governments have repeatedly described the NATO target as "aspirational." This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 21, 2020. https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/canada-jumps-closer-to-military-spending-target-thanks-to-covid-19-s-economic-damage-1.24224303

Michel Cabirol Sous la pression d'éventuelles sanctions américaines et des ONG, les banques françaises, dont BNP Paribas et Société Générale, appliquent désormais des règles de conformité (compliance) excessives pour les entreprises de défense considérées comme des entreprises à risque pour un financement. Cette tendance est en train d'étrangler progressivement une industrie de souveraineté. "Même si vos solutions semblent d'avenir et votre stratégie business cohérente, vous accompagner est trop risqué pour nous compte-tenu de la part de la défense dans vos contrats à venir". "Le critère de souveraineté n'est pas notre sujet quand nous évaluons un financement". "Ce n'est pas parce que la BPI vous soutient, que vous avez des contrats déjà signés, que nous devons vous suivre aveuglément"... Les refus de financement des banques françaises se multiplient, les témoignages désespérés, notamment des PME ou start-up de la filière défense, aussi. Clairement les banques, dont BNP Paribas et Société Générale, jouent de moins en moins le jeu pour financer et/ou accompagner une industrie souveraine, la défense, qui reste pourtant soutenue par l'État français, selon une note du GICAT (Groupement des industries françaises de défense et de sécurité terrestres et aéroterrestres) envoyée aux ministères des Armées et de l'Économie et que La Tribune a pu se procurer. Consciente du danger mortel que cette situation représente pour le secteur, la commission de la défense de l'Assemblée nationale souhaite s'emparer de ce sujet en lançant d'ici à la fin de la semaine une mission flash sur ce dossier extrêmement sensible. "Depuis maintenant deux ans, notre industrie de défense est confrontée à un problème croissant : le système bancaire et financier français est de plus en plus réticent à accompagner nos entreprises du secteur de la défense tant pour leur développement qu'en soutien à l'exportation", constate cette note du GICAT. Les directions juridiques ont pris le pouvoir Les refus de financement se décident principalement dans les bureaux discrets des équipes de juristes et d'avocats (compliance et éthique) devenues très puissantes (trop ?) au sein des directions des banques françaises. Ces dernières refusent des financements dans le développement, voire l'ouverture de compte auprès de jeunes entreprises "pure player" de la défense ou duales, assure le GICAT. "Les organismes bancaires décident de manière discrétionnaire de critères de compliance très poussés, se basant sur les analyses et recommandations de prestataires privés dont il n'est pas précisé le nom ou la nationalité", regrette l'organisation professionnelle. C'est le cas entre autre de la Société Générale, citée dans le document du GICAT : "l'industrie de la défense fait l'objet d'une attention particulière compte tenu du détournement potentiel d'usage de ses produits". "Au-delà des réglementations applicables, le groupe Société Générale définit dans la présente politique des critères additionnels d'exclusion et d'évaluation, qui... https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/armement-la-bombe-incendiaire-de-la-filiere-defense-gicat-contre-les-banques-francaises-860045.html

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY a.i. solutions Inc.,* Lanham, Maryland, is being awarded a $203,204,319 competitive, cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort contract with a three-year base value of $77,728,390 and two one-year options for quality and mission assurance advisory and assistance services. The work will be performed in the National Capital Region; Dahlgren, Virginia; Huntsville, Alabama; Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico; Fort Greely, Alaska; Orlando, Florida; Moorestown, New Jersey; Tucson, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; Promontory, Utah; Joplin, Missouri; and other locations as directed, with an estimated completion date of December 2025. This contract was competitively procured via publication on the beta.SAM.gov website with two proposals received. Fiscal 2020 and 2021 research, development, test and evaluation; and Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $4,513,906 are being obligated at time of award. The Missile Defense Agency, Huntsville, Alabama, is the contracting activity (HQ0858-21-C-0010). NAVY Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $138,769,282 modification (P00027) to previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract N00019-19-C-0010. This modification adds scope to continue the development of pilot training device software to align the F-35 air system with continued capability development. Additionally, this modification provides for testing and continuous re-certification activities for dual capable F-35 aircraft as Block 4 capabilities are developed, matured and fielded in support of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and non-Department of Defense (DOD) participants. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida (51%); and Fort Worth, Texas (49%), and is expected to be completed in June 2024. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force) funds in the amount of $4,623,119; fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $3,325,900; and non-DOD participant funds in the amount of $1,071,980 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. L3 Technologies Inc., Global Communications Solutions Division, Victor, New York, is awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a ceiling of $87,712,000 for the purchase of up to a maximum 169 production Marine Corps Wideband Satellite – Expeditionary systems. Work will be performed in Rochester, New York, and is expected to be complete by October 2025. Fiscal 2020 procurement (Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $20,673,900 will be obligated on the first delivery order immediately following contract award and funds will not expire at the end of current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the beta.sam.gov website, with four offers received. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity (M67854-21-D-2025). Technology Security Associates Inc.,* California, Maryland, is awarded an $83,287,546 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. This contract provides a full range of platform security and related support services to include, security modeling, program security management, trusted systems and network, cybersecurity, anti-tamper, system security engineering, international programs security support, acquisition security support, communications security support and physical security, force protection, anti-terrorism, and emergency management support for the Naval Air System Command and the Naval Air Warfare Centers. Work will be performed at Patuxent River, Maryland (90%); St. Inigoes, Maryland (2%); Lakehurst, New Jersey (2%); Orlando, Florida (1%); China Lake, California (1%); Point Mugu, California (1%); North Island, California (1%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (1%); and Jacksonville, Florida (1%), and is expected to be completed in October 2025. No funds will be obligated at the time of award; funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured as a small business set-aside; two offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00421-21-D-0005). Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $12,663,878 modification (P00088) to previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract N00019-16-C-0033. This modification adds scope in support of the F-35 Lightning II Lot 11 diminishing manufacturing sources redesign of the Electrical Optical Targeting System, 270V Battery Cell Separator and a component for the Helmet Mounted Display System for Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and non-Department of Defense (DOD) participants. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in January 2024. Fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $5,198,654; fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Air Force) funds in the amount of $5,198,654; and non-DOD participant funds in the amount of $2,266,570 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE Privoro, Tempe, Arizona, has been awarded a $37,100,000 firm-fixed-price agreement for prototyping and pilot work to support the establishment of a trusted platform for secure mobility that will bring the advantages of commercial mobile technology to government agencies. Work will be performed in Phoenix, Arizona, and is expected to be completed Aug. 1, 2024. Fiscal 2019 and 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $2,668,000 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Research Laboratory, Dayton, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8650-19-9-9333). U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND Trofholz Technologies Inc., Rocklin, California, was awarded a $15,000,000 maximum single award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (H92240-21-D-0001) with an ordering period of up to five years for contractor-provided non-personal Integrated Electronic Security System services in support of Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) enterprise requirements. Fiscal 2021 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $145,899 are being obligated at the time of award. The work will be performed in various locations inside and outside the U.S. and may continue through fiscal 2026, depending on timing of orders placed by NSWC. The contract was awarded competitively using Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 procedures with four proposals received. NSWC, Coronado, California, is the contracting activity. ARMY Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Connecticut, was awarded a $13,739,845 modification (P00152) to contract W58RGZ-17-C-0009 for one UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter. Work will be performed in Stratford, Connecticut, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2010 Foreign Military Sales (Jordan) funds in the amount of $13,739,845 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Oshkosh Defense LLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, has been awarded an $11,340,637 firm-fixed-price, requirements-type contract for tire and wheel assemblies. This was a competitive acquisition with one offer received. This is a three-year contract with no option periods. Locations of performance are Wisconsin and New Jersey, with an Oct. 20, 2023, ordering period end date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2021 through 2024 Army working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency, Land and Maritime, Warren, Michigan (SPRDL1-21-D-0004). *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2388282/source/GovDelivery/

Valerie Insinna and Jen Judson WASHINGTON — After years of sometimes contentious discussions, the Army and Air Force have adopted a plan to work together on what they are now calling Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control — the idea that all of the U.S. military's sensors and shooters must be able to send data to each other seamlessly and instantaneously. The agreement, signed Sept. 29 by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville, paves the way for closer collaboration on “mutual standards for data sharing and service interfacing” that will ultimately allow the services to ensure that new communications gear, networks and artificial intelligence systems they field can connect to each other, reducing the risk of incompatibility. But much is still unknown, including the exact nature of the Army-Air Force collaboration and how much technology the services will be willing to share. Army Futures Command and the Air Force's office of strategy, integration and requirements are tasked with leading the joint effort, which will bridge the services' major avenues for CJADC2 experimentation — the Army's Project Convergence and the Air Force's Advanced Battle Management System. Over the next 60 days, the two services will formulate a plan to connect the Project Convergence and ABMS exercises, and ensure data can be transmitted along their platforms, said Lt. Gen. Clinton Hinote, who leads Air Force's strategy office. But that doesn't mean the services are on a path to adopt the same systems architecture, data standards and interfaces. “What the Army and the Air Force are agreeing to is, we're going to be able to see their data, they're going to be able to see our data. And as much as we can, we will come up with common standards,” Hinote said in an Oct. 15 interview. “But even if we can't come up with common standards, we realize that translators are going to be something that will be with us for a long time, and we will build the translators necessary to make sure we can share.” The main point of the discussions was to avoid redundancies, McConville told Defense News on Oct. in a generation, said Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who pointed to the formation of the AirLand Battle doctrine in the 1980s as the last time they worked together so intimately on a new war-fighting concept. “I'm very encouraged that we have the Air Staff and the Army Staff investing countless hours,” he said. “We're laying down the path to get there. And it really starts with cloud architecture, common data standards, and command-and-control systems that you can wire together so that they can share information at the speed of relevance. So that whether it's an F-35 [fighter jet] or an artillery battery, they communicate with each other to prosecute enemy targets.” Battle of the AIs The Army's and the Air Force's goals are roughly the same. The services want to be able to take data from any of the services' sensors — whether that's the radar of an E-3 early airborne warning aircraft or the video collected by an MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone — and detect a threat, fuse it with other information coming in from other platforms, use artificial intelligence to provide a list of options to commanders and ultimately send accurate target data to the weapon systems that will shoot it, all in a drastically shortened timeline. Over the past year, the Air Force held three ABMS demonstrations, with the most recent taking place Sept. 15-25 alongside U.S. Indo-Pacific Command's Exercise Valiant Shield. So far, the service has tested out technology that allows the F-35 and F-22 jets to send data to each other despite their use of different waveforms. It also test tech that connects an AC-130 gunship with SpaceX's Starlink constellation, and used a high-velocity projectile shot from a howitzer to shoot down a surrogate cruise missile. All of those demonstrations were enabled by 5G connectivity, cloud computing and competing battle management systems that fused together data and applied machine-learning algorithms. Meanwhile, during the Army's first Project Convergence exercise held in September, the service tested a prototype of the Extended Range Cannon Artillery, fused data through a new system known as Prometheus and used artificial intelligence to recommend options for shooting a target. A Marine Corps F-35 also participated in some tests, receiving targeting information that originated from a satellite, then passing on information from its own sensors to an Army AI system known as FIRES Synchronization to Optimize Responses in Multi-Domain Operations — or FIRESTORM. Joint Army and Air Force experiments could begin as early as March 2021, said Portia Crowe, the chief data officer of the Army's Network Cross-Functional Team at Army Futures Command. Crowe, who spoke during a Oct. 14 webinar hosted by C4ISRNET, did not elaborate on what would be tested. Much of the early collaboration between the Army's Project Convergence and the Air Force's ABMS will likely involve plugging in new technologies from one service and seeing if they can successfully send data to the other's nodes in the experiment, Hinote said. But that won't be “where the magic happens,” he noted. “The magic is going to happen in the flow of information, and then the development of that information into something that looks new” through the use of artificial intelligence. Felix Jonathan, a robotics engineer from Carnegie Mellon University, inputs data into an autonomous ground vehicle control system during Project Convergence at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., which took place Aug. 11-Sept. 18, 2020. (Spc. Carlos Cuebas Fantauzzi/U.S. Army) Though Project Convergence and ABMS are still in their infancies, the Army and the Air Force have adopted different philosophies for incorporating machine learning into the “kill chain” — the sensors and weapon systems that detect, identify and prosecute a threat. While the Air Force is largely experimenting with solutions made by contractors like Anduril Industries and Palantir, the Army is mostly relying on government-owned platforms created by government software coders. “One of the things that I see as being an incredibly interesting exercise — I don't know if this will happen this year or next year, but I'm sure it will happen — is let's compare what we were able to do in the government, using government civilians who are coders and who are programming these machine-learning algorithms to come up with the top three actions [to take in response to a given threat],” Hinote said. “And let's compare that to what [private] companies are doing and their intellectual property. And then, if that gives us insight, then what is the business model that we want to propose?” But as those technologies mature, Hinote said, the services must answer difficult doctrinal and technical questions: How much should the government be involved in shaping the responses given by the algorithm, and how does it balance that requirement with industry's ability to move fast? When an AI gives a commander a list of military options, who owns that data? And how can military operators know the underlying assumptions an AI system is making when it presents a threat to commanders and a set of options for countering it? If they don't understand why an AI system is recommending a course of action, should commanders feel comfortable using lethal force? “How do we know enough about the machine learning and algorithms so that their output is useful, but not a surprise to us? And if it is a surprise, how did it get to that surprise? Because if you don't know that, you're going to feel very weird about using it for lethal force,” Hinote said. “Right now we're kind of feeling our way down that path to see how much trust are we going to have in these algorithms, and developing trust is going to be something you're going to see over and over and over in both Project Convergence and ABMS onramps.” Major barriers The Army and the Air Force aren't the only military entities driving to make CJADC2 a reality. The Navy recently launched its own effort — Project Overmatch — and tapped Rear Adm. Douglas Small on Oct. 1 to lead it. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday has said it is the service's second-most important priority, falling behind only the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. Coast Guardsmen simulate interdicting a jammer on a vessel in support of an Advanced Battle Management System experiment in the Gulf of Mexico on Sept. 3, 2020. (Staff Sgt. Haley Phillips/U.S. Air Force) In totality, the U.S. military will have at least three separate CJADC2 initiatives, each fielding their own hardware and software. There are good reasons for each service retaining their own programs, according to Hinote, as each domain presents unique challenges, and each service organizes itself differently to project power on land, at sea or in the air. “The Army has been very concerned over scale. They see each of their soldiers as being a node inside the network, and therefore you could have millions of nodes. And they're very concerned that if this was only Air Force-led, that the scale couldn't be reached — we would not have the ability to plug in all of those soldiers and nodes in the network,” Hinote said, adding that it's a valid concern. He added that the Air Force also has its challenges — namely the difficulty of sending data over long distances, and having to connect aircraft and sensors that may be far away from a target. But the result is three large, complicated acquisition programs that will need billions of dollars in funding — and potentially compete against each other for money. To further complicate the issue, the military's existing funding mechanisms aren't optimized for the fast-paced, iterative experimentation and procurement the services seek. One way to overcome this might involve creating a Pentagon-wide fund for CJADC2, and then split it among the services, Hinote said. Another option might include designating one service as the executive agent, giving that force organizing authority and the power of the purse. But both come with drawbacks. “[There are] different models out there, but none of them seem to really fit,” Hinote said. “And so we have been having talks with especially the appropriations defense [committees on] the Senate and House side on what would it look like for a modern military to buy a capability like this, and what would the taxpayers need for understanding that this is good stewardship. And that has not been decided.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/10/20/the-army-and-air-force-are-finally-on-the-same-page-with-a-plan-to-connect-the-military-what-happens-next/