News

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. The Army is ready for unmanned vehicles but not yet for a completely unmanned convoy. The 2020 iteration is called Expedient Leader-Follower because the Army still wants a human soldier driving the lead vehicle, with up to nine autonomous trucks following in its trail. But Oshkosh and Robotic Research told me they could take the humans out altogether, if the Army wanted. If you find self-driving cars impressive today, think about Army trucks that can drive themselves off-road, in a war zone, less than three years from now. For all the Army's embrace of high technology, the service still wants the lead vehicle in the convoy to have a human driver, at least at first. But the unmanned trucks that follow behind will need to stick to the trail without relying on street signs, lane markings, pavement, or GPS. They might not even have a clear line of sight to the vehicle ahead of them, which may turn a corner in a city or disappear into a cloud of dust driving cross-country. En route, they have to avoid not only pedestrians, animals, and vehicles, like civilian self-driving cars, but also rubble, rocks, trees, and shell holes. And they have to avoid solid obstacles without stopping every time they see tall grass, a low-hanging branch, or a dust cloud in their path — the kind of common-sense distinction that's easy for humans but very hard for computer vision. But the Army is confident it can be done. Army Secretary Mark Esper has publicly enthused about the technology after riding in a prototype, saying it could both free up manpower for the front line — most troops work on logistics and maintenance, not in combat units — and save lives from roadside bombs and ambushes — to which supply convoysare particularly vulnerable. After years of tinkering, the Army has accelerated its Automated Ground Resupply (AGR) program by spinning off something called the Expedient Leader-Follower demonstration. Contractors are currently installing Robotic Research LLC's computer brains and sensors on 10 Oshkosh M1075 PLS (Palletized Loader System) trucks that'll be used for safety certification tests in 2019. They'll convert 60 more to self-driving vehicles in time to equip two Army transportation companies in 2020. While the two units' main job will be to demonstrate the technology works in field conditions, “if they get called to deploy, they will deploy with the vehicles,” said Alberto Lacaze, president of Robotic Research, in an interview with me yesterday. “That could happen fairly quickly.” Exactly when the large-scale demo starts in 2020 is still a moving target, based mainly on how 2019's safety testing goes, said Pat Williams, VP for Army and Marine Corps programs at Oshkosh Defense. It's the Army's call on whether to compress the timeline, he told me, but “there's interest in pulling that left where possible.” Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/army-wants-70-self-driving-supply-trucks-by-2020

By: Shawn Snow The Corps wants new lighter body armor to give commanders more flexibility in low-intensity conflicts on the battlefields of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines posted a request for information, or RFI, Wednesday to seek out industry support in fielding a new, lighter body armor that will complement the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI, plates already fielded by Marines. According to the RFI, the Corps is seeking new armor to provide “protection from non-armor piercing rounds that are currently prevalent in counterinsurgency operations and other low intensity threat environments.” “Our current ESAPI plates do an amazing job of protecting Marines and have saved many lives,” Nick Pierce, Individual Armor team lead, program manager of Infantry Combat Equipment at Marine Corps Systems Command, said in a command release. “The only problem is Marines are currently given a binary choice between taking on 15 pounds to be protected or zero pounds and very little protection. This new lightweight plate would protect Marines and give commanders the choice of what plate to use based on the specific mission.” https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/08/15/the-corps-wants-lighter-body-armor-for-counterinsurgency-conflicts/

By: Shawn Snow The Corps plans to hire a slew of athletic trainers, and come October Marines will likely notice a new healthier food menu and layout at their respective chow halls. It's all part of an effort by the Corps to reduce injuries across the force and cater to combat athletes in similar fashion to division one collegiate players. The new chow facilities or “athletic kitchens” will boast healthier options with fresh fruit and vegetables up front. There will be a cold bar option with yogurt, granola and fresh fruit in the morning and a salad bar for lunch and dinner. “As you go through the line it's going to be the green stuff,” Col. Stephen Armes, the director of the Force Fitness Division told Marine Corps Times in an interview. “All the healthy stuff is going to be up front.” The new chow halls are going to resemble college athletic dining facilities with fresh greens and an assortment of healthy proteins, according to Armes. But unhealthy food is not disappearing, the Corps just plans to make it harder for you to choose that option. “Sometimes you just need a cheeseburger, there's nothing wrong with that,” Armes said. But, a Marine is “going to have to fight to get down to that cheeseburger.” The Corps is also on the verge of hiring new athletic trainers separate from the nearly 600 Force Fitness Instructors already fielded across the Marines. Full Article: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/08/14/athletic-trainers-and-greener-kitchens-on-the-way-as-corps-caters-to-combat-athletes/

By Ellen Nakashima The Pentagon has a new goal aimed at protecting its $100 billion supply chain from foreign theft and sabotage: to base its weapons contract awards on security assessments — not just cost and performance — a move that would mark a fundamental shift in department culture. The goal, based on a strategy called Deliver Uncompromised, comes as U.S. defense firms are increasingly vulnerable to data breaches, a risk highlighted earlier this year by China's alleged theft of sensitive information related to undersea warfare, and the Pentagon's decision last year to ban software made by the Russian firm Kaspersky Lab. On Monday, President Trump signed into a law a provision that would bar the federal government from buying equipment from Chinese telecommunications firms Huawei and ZTE Corp., a measure spurred by lawmakers' concerns about Chinese espionage. “The department is examining ways to designate security as a metric within the acquisition process,” Maj. Audricia Harris, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement. “Determinations [currently] are based on cost, schedule and performance. The department's goal is to elevate security to be on par with cost, schedule and performance.” The strategy was written by Mitre Corp., a nonprofit company that runs federally funded research centers, and the firm released a copy of its reportMonday. “The major goal is to move our suppliers, the defense industrial base and the rest of the private sector who contribute to the supply chain, beyond a posture of compliance — to owning the problem with us,” said Chris Nissen, director of asymmetric-threat response at Mitre. Harris said the Pentagon will review Mitre's recommendations before proceeding. She added that the Department of Defense, working with Congress and industry, “is already advancing to elevate security within the supply chain.” Testifying to Congress in June, Kari Bingen, the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary for intelligence, said: “We must have confidence that industry is delivering capabilities, technologies and weapon systems that are uncompromised by our adversaries, secure from cradle to grave.” Security should be seen not as a “cost burden,” she told the House Armed Services Committee, “but as a major factor in their competitiveness for U.S. government business.” The new strategy is necessary, officials say, because U.S. adversaries can degrade the military's battlefield and technological advantage by using “blended operations” — hacking and stealing valuable data, manipulating software to sabotage command and control systems or cause weapons to fail, and potentially inducing a defense firm employee to insert a faulty component or chip into a system. “A modern aircraft may have more than 10 million lines of code,” Mitre's report said. “Combat systems of all types increasingly employ sensors, actuators and software-activated control devices.” The term “Deliver Uncompromised” grew out of a 2010 meeting of senior counterintelligence policy officials, some of whom lamented that the Defense Department was tolerating contractors repeatedly delivering compromised capabilities to the Pentagon and the intelligence community. Addressing the security issue requires greater participation by counterintelligence agencies, which can detect threats against defense firms, the report said, and ideally, the government should establish a National Supply Chain Intelligence Center to monitor threats and issue warnings to all government agencies. Ultimately, the military's senior leaders bear responsibility for securing the supply chain and must be held accountable for it, the report said. The Defense Department, although one of the world's largest equipment purchasers, cannot control all parts of the supplier base. Nonetheless, it has influence over the companies it contracts with as it is the principal source of business for thousands of companies. It can shape behavior through its contracts to enhance supply-chain security, the report said. Legislation will be needed to provide incentives to defense and other private-sector companies to boost security, Mitre said. Congress should pass laws that shield firms from being sued if they share information about their vulnerabilities that could help protect other firms against cyberattacks; or if they are hacked by a foreign adversary despite using advanced cybersecurity technologies, the report said. Contractors should be given incentives such as tax breaks to embrace supply chain security, the report suggested. The Department of Homeland Security is addressing the security of the information technology supply chain through its newly established National Risk Management Center. “What we're saying is you should be looking at what vendors are doing to shore up their cybersecurity practices to protect the supply chain,” said Christopher Krebs, DHS undersecretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate. The National Counterintelligence and Security Center, an agency of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that coordinates the government's counterintelligence strategy, said in a report last month that software-supply-chain infiltration has already threatened critical infrastructure and is poised to endanger other sectors. According to the NCSC, last year “represented a watershed in the reporting of software supply chain” attacks. There were “numerous events involving hackers targeting software supply chains with back doors for cyber espionage, organizational disruption or demonstrable financial impact,” the agency found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-pentagon-is-rethinking-its-multibillion-dollar-relationship-with-us-defense-contractors-to-stress-supply-chain-security/2018/08/12/31d63a06-9a79-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.265ce85b6eb1

By: Jill Aitoro WASHINGTON — The secret to tackling the defense information technology market may be scale. Looking specifically at the pure-play IT companies that landed on the 2018 Defense News Top 100 list, many of those that have doubled down in some capacity saw defense revenue increase during fiscal 2017. That came on the tail end of another trend among the largest defense primes, to get out of the IT business. “The evolution started a couple years ago, where the large defense primes who had boned up on IT service work during the war [on terror] started to realize that for a variety of reasons they might not be able to compete as effectively, or extract the returns they want out of a business like that,” said Jon Raviv, senior analyst and vice president for aerospace and defense at Citi Research. Divestitures followed, and pure-play IT companies were able to quickly scale up not just in size and their ability to support massive contracts, but also in capability set. The acquisition of Lockheed Martin's IT business transformed Leidos from a $5 billion company to a $10 billion company. That deal closed in late 2016, explaining how the company saw double-digit growth in defense revenue in both 2016 and 2017 — despite the buy actually making the company less defense heavy overall. Similarly, CACI closed on the acquisition of L3 Technology's National Security Solutions for $550 million in February 2016 — three months before the end of its fiscal year. The associated revenue contributed to the 16 percent increase in defense revenue during 2017. Leidos CEO Roger Krone, in an interview with Defense News in 2016 soon after the acquisition closed, pointed to “scale, but not scale for scale's sake” as a big factor in the buy — noting, too, the importance of balancing the portfolio and geographic distribution. He also pointed to sheer numbers — 15,000 employees specifically — many with security clearances. The trend does seem to be continuing. CSRA chose to not participate in the 2018 Top 100 because its $9.7 billion acquisition by General Dynamics closed by the time data collection for the list kicked off. While General Dynamics is a top defense prime, its IT business functions as a largely separate entity, similar to the pure-play IT companies. The acquisition of CSRA, which reported $2.25 billion in defense revenue for fiscal 2016 — will add significant scale to GDIT. It is also likely to influence the company's Top 100 rank next year. The future promises more cyber and IT-related merger and acquisition activity in the vein of that deal, according to Daniel Gouré, a vice president with the Lexington Institute think tank. “Raytheon is still in acquisition mode with cyber, so it's an area that's still kind of churning,” he said. “I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these big players acquire some of the more defense-oriented cyber players.” Unclear is what the sweet spot may be for those exclusively IT-focused firms. “Where we sit right now, it's not clear what the right size is,” Raviv said. “GDIT and Leidos are about $10 billion in sales; SAIC and CACI and ManTech are lower tier. All of those companies say they are happy with scale but could do a deal. Whether they call it scale, or marrying capability sets — it's all marketing, I suppose.” And there are other tactics that achieve scale without acquisition. Perspecta emerged on the 2018 Top 100, having launched June 1, 2018 through the combination of DXC Technology's U.S. public sector business, Vencore, and KeyPoint Government Solutions. As one entity, Perspecta reported $2.73 billion in defense revenue and ranked 37. To put that in perspective, Vencore ranked 67 in last year's list, with $886.59 million in defense revenue. And all of these pure-play companies are increasingly marketing themselves as conduits to the “nontraditional players” that the Pentagon is so keen to attract. Amazon Web Services, for example, will often partner with government IT companies on defense contracts to hand off some of the contracting morass. That said, for all the potential, the bulk of the defense IT market is notoriously fickle. Services often set aside IT projects in an effort to preserve platform buys, and margins can be low. Agencies also struggle to balance upkeep of existing systems versus modernization efforts versus research and development into the next great technological marvel. But as Raviv noted, it's all IT. “Yes, there are companies working on high-end cyber, the ability to launch attacks through cyberspace or to harden the communication node on a new missile so it can't be hacked by, say, China. And while the word cyber came up a lot three or four years ago, now you hear a lot about AI, autonomy and machine learning. But it's all technology. And it's a lot of smart people working on a lot of advanced things many of us don't understand.” https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2018/08/09/for-it-companies-the-secret-to-success-in-defense-is-all-about-big-growth/

Ott Ummelas Donald Trump has taken credit for a rise in military spending by NATO states, but in the alliance's eastern reaches, it's his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who's driving the rearming effort. Last month, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thanked the U.S. President for “clearly having an impact” on defense spending by allies while Trump said his demands had added $41 billion to European and Canadian defense outlays. But the jump in acquisitions behind the former Iron Curtain of aircraft, ships and armored vehicles began when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, well before Trump's 2016 election victory, according to analysts including Tomas Valasek, director of Carnegie Europe in Brussels. While the median defense expenditure of NATO members is 1.36 percent of gross domestic product, below the alliance's requirement of 2 percent, eastern members comprise seven of the 13 members that are paying above that level. “Countries on NATO's eastern border do not need Donald Trump to boost defense spending,” Valasek said. “They decided this long before he came to power. The spending boost was because of a president, but it was Vladimir Putin, not the U.S. President.” Constant overflights by Russian aircraft into NATO airspace, cyberattacks on government and military installations, wargames on the borders of the Baltic states and accusations that Russia was behind a failed coup in newest member Montenegro have put NATO's eastern quadrant on alert for what it says is an increasingly expansionist Russia. Of the 15 members exceeding the bloc's guideline that 20 percent of total defense spending should go to equipment, six are from eastern Europe. At the time of the NATO summit in Brussels, Romania said it would buy five more F-16s from Portugal, raising its squadron to 12, after it signed a $400-million deal to acquire a Patriot missile air-defense system with Raython in May. The country of 20 million people bordering Ukraine, Moldova and the Black Sea plans to buy 36 more F-16s, four corvettes, at least 3,000 transport vehicles and coastal gun batteries over the next five years. Slovakia also announced the purchase of F-16 fighter jets at the summit to replace its aging Russian Mig-29s in a deal that was years in negotiating. And last month, Bulgaria asked for bids for at least eight new or used fighter jets by October at a total cost of 1.8 billion lev ($1 billion). By end-2018, the government in Sofia plans to buy 1.5 billion lev worth of armored vehicles and two warships for 1 billion lev. Neighboring Hungary said in June that it had agreed to buy 20 Airbus H145M multi-purpose helicopters, the country's largest military purchase since 2001. NATO's European members are expected to spend around $60 billion on equipment this year, with the 13 eastern members accounting for about 10 percent, said Tony Lawrence, a research fellow with the International Center for Security and Defense in Tallinn. The newer members will together spend about $2 billion more on equipment this year than last, he said. According to NATO, seven of its 10 biggest spending increases will be in the east. “Since these nations' membership in NATO, there has been a clear inclination to foster and strengthen their link with the U.S.,” said Martin Lundmark, a researcher with Swedish Defense University in Stockholm. “By procuring strategic defense systems, they willingly become interdependent and inter-operable with the U.S.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-13/nato-s-east-is-rearming-but-it-s-because-of-putin-not-trump

Rank Last Year's Rank Company Leadership Country 2017 Defense Revenue* (in millions) 2016 Defense Revenue* (in millions) % Defense Revenue Change 2017 Total Revenue* (in millions) Revenue From Defense 1 1 Lockheed Martin 1 Marillyn Hewson, Chairman, President and CEO U.S. $47,985.00 $43,468.00 10% $51,048.00 94% 2 4 Raytheon Company 1 Thomas Kennedy, Chairman and CEO U.S. $23,573.64 $22,384.17 5% $25,348.00 93% 3 3 BAE Systems Jerry DeMuro, President and CEO U.K. $22,380.04 $23,621.84 -5% $25,288.20 88% 4 5 Northrop Grumman 2 Wes Bush, Chairman and CEO U.S. $21,700.00 $20,200.00 7% $25,803.00 84% 5 2 Boeing 3 Dennis Muilenburg, President and CEO U.S. $20,561.00 $20,180.00 2% $94,005.00 22% 6 6 General Dynamics 4 Phebe Novakovic, Chairman and CEO U.S. $19,587.00 $19,696.00 -1% $30,973.00 63% 7 7 Airbus Thomas Enders, CEO Netherlands/France $11,185.91 $12,321.00 -9% $75,702.63 15% 8 11 Almaz-Antey 5 Yan Novikov, CEO Russia $9,125.02 $6,581.69 39% $9,125.02 100% 9 10 Thales Patrice Caine, Chairman and CEO France $8,926.13 $8,362.00 7% $17,852.26 50% 10 9 Leonardo Alessandro Profumo, CEO Italy $8,856.48 $8,526.22 4% $13,024.24 68% Full top 100: http://people.defensenews.com/top-100/

By: Martin Banks BRUSSELS — After two decades in which spending was often cut or stagnant, Europe is gearing up to spend big on defense. European Union nations, now unfettered by Britain's decision to leave the organization, have achieved a 70-year-old ambition to integrate their defenses, launching a pact among 25 EU governments to jointly fund, develop and deploy armed forces. The pact, called Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, is meant as a show of unity and a tangible step in EU integration, particularly after Brexit. Earlier this year, Brussels also launched a major incentive for EU member states to cooperate on military procurement with a European Defence Fund, or EDF, worth €5 billion (U.S. $5.8 billion) per year, the first time the EU has put serious money on the table for this purpose. The EU has already approved one aspect of the fund, the European Defence Industrial Development Programme, or EDIDP, intended to foster cross-border cooperation between companies. But this huge upsurge in EU defense efforts begs the question: Are these various initiatives doing anything to bolster Europe's defense industry? Full Article: https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2018/08/09/eu-defense-ambitions-trickle-down-to-industry-but-is-it-good-for-business/

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Saudi Arabia is expecting a full apology from Canada for a tweet that raised questions about human rights issues in the Middle East country. It is unlikely that would be coming anytime soon. So the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Canada continues. In recent days, Riyadh suspended diplomatic ties with Canada, expelled the Canadian ambassador and recalled its own envoy to Ottawa after Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and her department criticized the regime on Twitter for its arrest of social activists, demanding their immediate release. Angered by the condemnation, Saudi Arabia has also tried to sting Canada's economy by halting future trade and investment deals and by cancelling lucrative scholarships that would have seen 15,000 of its citizens study in Canada. One media report said Saudi banks and pension funds were ordered to sell off their Canadian assets, although that report remains unconfirmed. Bloomberg News has reported that any move by Saudi Arabia to stop new investments and unload assets in Canada is likely to have limited impact. Saudi assets in Canada are confined mainly to stakes in upscale hotel operators, some small stock holdings in companies like Canadian National Railway and grain facilities, Bloomberg noted. What is interesting is what Saudi Arabia hasn't done. It is still willing to sell oil to Canada and has not put any roadblocks on that money-making venture. The Saudi Press Agency confirmed Thursday that the “diplomatic crisis” wouldn't affect the kingdom's petroleum sales to Canada. But that has also raised questions in Canada about why we are buying oil from Saudi Arabia when we have such large reserves ourselves? The big question is whether the Saudis will withdraw from its $15 billion deal to buy Light Armoured Vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems of London, Ont.? It could happen but such a move would likely only hurt the Saudis. They need the vehicles and to negotiate a new contract with another arms supplier, plus get delivery of that equipment, could take years. Then there is the supply of parts and other support for the existing LAVs that the Saudis previously purchased from General Dynamics. Would shutting down all links to the LAV supply chain make sense for the Saudis? Finance Minister Bill Morneau said Thursday he was still unsure if the General Dynamics contract would be affected. Defence Watch submitted a series of questions to General Dynamics asking whether it would be halting production of LAVs destined for Saudi Arabia and would GD continue to provide spare parts for LAVs already delivered? “General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada declines to comment,” spokesman Doug Wilson-Hodge stated in an email. Full article: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/saudis-would-only-hurt-themselves-by-cancelling-light-armoured-vehicle-contract