Filter Results:

All sectors

All categories

    3580 news articles

    You can refine the results using the filters above.

  • U.S. Presidential Candidates Will Face Stagnant Defense Budget

    October 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    U.S. Presidential Candidates Will Face Stagnant Defense Budget

    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

  • Canada jumps closer to military-spending target thanks to COVID-19's economic damage

    October 22, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    Canada jumps closer to military-spending target thanks to COVID-19's economic damage

    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

  • Armement : la bombe incendiaire de la filière défense (GICAT) contre les banques françaises

    October 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    Armement : la bombe incendiaire de la filière défense (GICAT) contre les banques françaises

    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

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense – October 21, 2020

    October 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense – October 21, 2020

    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/

  • The Army and Air Force are finally on the same page with a plan to connect the military. What happens next?

    October 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Land, C4ISR

    The Army and Air Force are finally on the same page with a plan to connect the military. What happens next?

    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/

  • Rheinmetall eyes do-over in new pitch of its Lynx vehicle to the US Army

    October 21, 2020 | International, Land, Security

    Rheinmetall eyes do-over in new pitch of its Lynx vehicle to the US Army

    Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — Rheinmetall is teaming with Textron Systems to pitch the Lynx KF41 vehicle as a Bradley replacement to the U.S. Army, the company announced Tuesday. The campaign marks the second time that the Düsseldorf, Germany-based company is targeting the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program following an unsuccessful attempt last year that eventually saw the ground service halt the race. This time around, Rheinmetall is putting greater emphasis on a U.S. footprint, led by its growing American Rheinmetall Vehicles subsidiary based in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Textron, as the newcomer on Team Lynx, is meant to be front and center when it comes to manufacturing and robotics capabilities. “Textron Systems' Slidell, Louisiana, vehicle production facility has supported more than 15 armored vehicle programs of record supporting over 20 countries,” Henry Finneral, senior vice president and general manager of Textron Systems' Marine and Land Systems business, said in a statement. “We stand ready to support the team and the US Army and deliver a trusted platform for the future.” Matt Warnick, managing director at American Rheinmetall Vehicles, said the “teaming agreement brings together two of the world's leading providers of defense industry solutions." Raytheon remains part of the team. Executives hope the new Army competition will give all bidders more leeway in fine-tuning their eventual offers to the service's requirements. That marks a contrast to the previous acquisition attempt, where the ground service essentially wanted specific features already built into prototype vehicles, with little time for companies to adjust. This time around, the Army plans to downsize to five bidders, then three, before picking an eventual winner. A final request for proposals is expected late this year or early next. Service officials have put competitors on notice that an open architecture in the vehicle design will be at a premium, a feature that Rheinmetall touted in its bid notice. “The network is almost more important in some ways than building the combat vehicles,” Maj. Gen. Brian Cummings, program executive officer of ground combat systems, told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army's virtual conference, which ended last week. Rheinmetall previously planned to present the teaming arrangement with Textron at this year's AUSA show if the event had taken place in person. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/20/rheinmetall-eyes-do-over-in-new-pitch-of-its-lynx-vehicle-to-the-us-army/

  • Estimate of new nuclear missiles to replace Minuteman 3 arsenal increases to $95.8B

    October 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Estimate of new nuclear missiles to replace Minuteman 3 arsenal increases to $95.8B

    WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has raised to $95.8 billion the estimated cost of fielding a new fleet of land-based nuclear missiles to replace the Minuteman 3 arsenal that has operated continuously for 50 years, officials said Monday. Robert Burns The estimate is up about $10 billion from four years ago. The weapons, known as intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, are intended as part of a near-total replacement of the American nuclear force over the next few decades at a total cost of more than $1.2 trillion. Some, including former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, argue that U.S. national security can be ensured without ICBMs, but the Pentagon says they are vital to deterring war. The Trump administration affirmed its commitment to fielding a new generation of ICBMs in a 2018 review of nuclear policy. “The ICBM force is highly survivable against any but a large-scale nuclear attack,” the review concluded. “To destroy U.S. ICBMs on the ground, an adversary would need to launch a precisely coordinated attack with hundreds of high-yield and accurate warheads. This is an insurmountable challenge for any potential adversary today, with the exception of Russia.” The current fleet of 400 deployed Minuteman missiles, each armed with a single nuclear warhead, is based in underground silos in Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska. Their numbers are governed in part by the 2010 New START treaty with Russia, which is due to expire in February. Russia wants to extend the treaty but the Trump administration has set conditions not accepted by Moscow. The U.S. also is building a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines to replace the current Ohio-class strategic subs; a new long-range nuclear-capable bomber to replace the B-2 stealth aircraft; a next-generation air-launched nuclear cruise missile; and a new nuclear command and communications system. It also is working on updated warheads, including an ICBM warhead replacement for an estimated $14.8 billion The nuclear modernization program was launched by the Obama administration and has been continued by President Donald Trump. Democrat Joe Biden has said that if elected in November he would consider finding ways to scale back the program. The Pentagon's $95.8 billion cost estimate for the Minuteman replacement was first reported by Bloomberg News. The Pentagon provided the estimate to Congress last month but had, until Monday, refused to release it publicly. Last month the Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $13.3 billion contract for engineering and manufacturing development of the new missiles. The total “lifecycle” cost, including operating and sustaining the missiles over their expected lifetime into the 2070s, is set at $263.9 billion. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/19/estimate-of-new-nuclear-missiles-to-replace-minuteman-3-arsenal-increases-to-958b/

  • U.S. Army Flexes New Land-Based, Anti-Ship Capabilities

    October 21, 2020 | International, Naval, Land, C4ISR

    U.S. Army Flexes New Land-Based, Anti-Ship Capabilities

    Steve Trimble Lee Hudson Finding ever new and efficient ways to sink enemy ships is usually assigned to the U.S. Navy and, to a lesser extent, the Air Force, but not anymore. Though still focused on its primary role of maneuvering against land forces and shooting down air and missile threats, the Army is quietly developing an arsenal of long-range maritime strike options. As the Army carves out an offensive role in the Pentagon's preparations for a mainly naval and air war with China, service officials now seek to develop a capacity for targeting and coordinating strikes on maritime targets with helicopter gunships in the near term and with long-range ballistic missiles by 2025. The Project Convergence 2020 event in September focused the Army on learning how to solve the command and control challenge for a slew of new land-attack capabilities scheduled to enter service by fiscal 2023. The follow-on event next year will expand to include experiments with the Army's command and control tasks in the unfamiliar maritime domain. “I think we have a long way to go in terms of partnering with the Navy for some of the maritime targeting [capabilities],” says Brig. Gen. John Rafferty, the Army's cross-functional team leader for Long-Range Precision Fires. “And I think that'll be a natural evolution into Project Convergence 2021,” Rafferty says, speaking during the Association of the U.S. Army's virtual annual meeting on Oct. 15. The Army operates a small, modest fleet of watercraft, including logistics support vessels and Runnymede-class large landing craft, but service officials have been content to respond to attacks on enemy ships at sea with the Navy's surface combatants and carrier-based fighter squadrons. Last year, the Air Force also revived a maritime strike role by activating the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile on the B-1B fleet. But the Army's position has changed. The AH-64E Capability Version 6, which Boeing started developing in 2018, includes a modernized radar frequency interferometer. The receiver can identify maritime radars, allowing the AH-64E to target watercraft at long range for the first time. Meanwhile, the Defense Department's Strategic Capabilities Office started working in 2016 to integrate an existing seeker used for targeting ships into the Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms), which is currently the Army's longest-range surface-to-surface missile at 300 km (162 nm). Beginning in fiscal 2023, the Lockheed Martin Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is scheduled to begin replacing the Atacms. The Increment 1 version will extend the range of the Army's missiles to 500 km. A follow-on Increment 2 version of PrSM is scheduled to enter service in fiscal 2025, featuring a new maritime seeker now in flight testing by the Army Research Laboratory. “As we begin to develop the PrSM [Increment 2] with the cross-domain capability against maritime and emitting [integrated air defense system] targets, obviously we'll be partnering with the Navy on that,” Rafferty says. Targeting ships from land-based artillery systems is not unique to the Army. The U.S. Marine Corps plans to introduce the Raytheon-Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile, firing the ground-based anti-ship cruise missile from a remotely operated Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. To strike a moving target at ranges beyond the horizon, the Army needs more than an innovative new seeker. A targeting complex linking over-the-horizon sensors with the Atacms and PrSM batteries is necessary. Moreover, the Army will need to adapt command and control procedures to an unfamiliar maritime domain. The annual Project Convergence events offer a laboratory for the Army to prepare the targeting and command and control complex before new weapons enter service. With the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, a medium-range ballistic missile and PrSM also set to enter service in the next three years, the Army is seeking to adapt quickly. Last month, the Army used the first prototype of the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node ground station. An artificial intelligence (AI) program named Prometheus sifted through intelligence information to identify targets. Another AI algorithm called SHOT matched those targets to particular weapons with the appropriate range and destructive power. An underlying fire-control network, called the Advanced Field Artillery Data System, provided SHOT with the location and magazine status of each friendly weapon system. A process that would otherwise take minutes or even hours dwindled—in an experimental setting—to a few seconds. The first Project Convergence event last month focused on the Army's traditional mission against targets on land. The next event will seek to replicate that streamlined targeting process against ships possibly hundreds of miles away. These experiments are intended to help the Army familiarize itself with new tools in the command and control loop, such as automated target-recognition systems and targeting assignments. The event also helps the Army dramatically adapt, in a few years, institutional practices that had endured for decades. “In order for a bureaucracy to change, [it has] to understand the need, and we have to create the use case in order for a bureaucracy to change,” says Gen. Mike Murray, the head of the Army Futures Command. “I think in Project Convergence, what we're able to demonstrate to the senior leaders in the army will further help drive that change.” In a way, the Army is seeking to achieve in the maritime domain a networked sensor and command and control system that the Navy introduced to its fleet nearly two decades ago. To improve the fleet air-defense mission substantially, the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) generally develops a common, shared database of tracks from the multiple airborne, surface and subsurface sensors available to a carrier battle group. But the Navy also is building on the CEC standard. In 2016, a Lockheed F-35B demonstrated the ability to develop a target track of an over-the-horizon enemy warship. The track information was sent via the CEC to a launcher for a Raytheon SM-6. Although primarily an air- and missile-defense interceptor, in this case the SM-6 demonstrated an anti-ship role. A follow-on development SM-6 Block 1B is expected to optimize the weapon system as a long-range, anti-ship ballistic missile with hypersonic speed. More recently, the Navy has been quietly experimenting with its own series of Project Convergence-like experiments. Known as the Navy Tactical Grid experiments, the Navy and Marine Corps organized a series of demonstrations in fiscal 2019, according to the latest budget justification documents. Building on the common operating picture provided by the CEC, the Navy Tactical Grid is possibly experimenting with similar automation and machine-learning algorithms to streamline and amplify the targeting cycle dramatically. A new initiative is now replacing the Navy Tactical Grid experiments. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday tapped Rear Adm. Douglas Small, the head of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, to lead the effort known as Project Overmatch. Small must provide a strategy, no later than early December, that outlines how the Navy will develop the networks, infrastructure, data architecture, tools and analytics to support the operational force. This includes linking hundreds of ships, submarines, unmanned systems and aircraft. “Beyond recapitalizing our undersea nuclear deterrent, there is no higher developmental priority in the U.S. Navy,” Gilday wrote in an Oct. 1 memo that revealed the existence of Project Overmatch. Aviation Week obtained a copy of the document. “I am confident that closing this risk is dependent on enhancing Distributed Maritime Operations through a teamed manned-unmanned force that exploits artificial intelligence and machine learning.” While Small is tasked with creating the “connective tissue,” Gilday directs Vice Adm. James Kilby, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities (N9), with accelerating development of unmanned capabilities and long-range fires, Gilday wrote in a separate Oct. 1 memo outlining the details of Project Overmatch. Kilby's assessment must include a metric for the Navy to measure progress and a strategy that appropriately funds each component. His initial plan is also due to Gilday in early December. “Drive coherence to our plans with a long-term, sustainable [and] affordable view that extends far beyond the [future years defense plan],” Gilday wrote. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapons/us-army-flexes-new-land-based-anti-ship-capabilities

  • Cyber Solarium Commission outlines recommendations for strengthening the supply chain

    October 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    Cyber Solarium Commission outlines recommendations for strengthening the supply chain

    Mark Pomerleau WASHINGTON — On the heels of its capstone March report, the Cyberspace Solarium Commission has released a detailed follow-up with recommendations for how to secure the information and communications technologies supply chain. The commission is a bipartisan organization created by Congress in 2019 to develop a multipronged U.S. cyber strategy. It delivered a report in March, advocating for multiple cyber deterrence efforts. The whitepaper, released Monday, is one of several add-ons to the original report that go into greater depth on a particular topic or recommendation from the March report. This specific whitepaper solely focuses on the recommendation that Congress should direct the U.S. government to develop and implement a strategy for the information and communications technology industrial base to ensure more trusted supply chains and the availability of critical information and communications technologies. The whitepaper frames in stark terms that the United States lacks a strategy vis-a-vis China. “Over the past two decades, China has mobilized state-owned and state-influenced companies to grab a dominant position in markets for several emerging technologies, including the market for telecommunications equipment,” the report noted. “This is no accident but rather the result of a concerted, strategic effort by the Chinese government to capture these markets through a mix of government-led industrial policy; unfair and deceptive trade practices, including state-led intellectual property theft; the manipulation of international standards and trade bodies; a growing network of influence built on the back of diplomatic and trade negotiations; and significant investments in research and development in ICT.” As a result, the whitepaper is the commission's effort to help lay out a strategy for the government to better compete in this space, become less reliant upon manufacturing and resources in Asia, and thus spur greater security. “We're doing a lot but we lack a north star or a strategic approach that weaves or stiches it all together,” Robert Morgus, senior director for the commission, told C4ISRNET ahead of the whitepaper's release. “Without that north star, U.S. federal government efforts are uncoordinated.” The paper lists a five-pronged strategy to build trusted supply chains: Identify key technologies and equipment through government reviews and public-private partnerships to identify risk. Ensure minimum viable manufacturing capacity through strategic investment. Protect supply chains from compromise through better intelligence, information sharing and product testing. Stimulate a domestic market through targeted infrastructure investment, and ensure the ability of companies to offer products in the United States similar to those in foreign markets. Ensure global competitiveness of trusted supply chains, including American and partner companies, in the face of Chinese anti-competitive behavior in global markets. Moreover, the paper lists a series of recommendations to achieve the strategy, which include a variety of ways to streamline information sharing and efforts that could be taken within the federal government. The report couches supply chain security in both economic and national security terms, which Morgus noted cannot be decoupled. “The simple fact that we aren't competing with China on that front creates that security issue. ... The economic issue here is leading to a national security and a cybersecurity issue, and the two issues really can't be disentangled,” he said. “The fact that we don't have trusted suppliers or a robust network of trusted suppliers that can compete has created a security issue where we are reliant on Chinese manufacturing or companies with manufacturing presence in China, which is a potential security issue from the trustworthiness and the availability of those goods and services.” Among one of the key pillars of the strategy to build a stronger supply chain, the report suggests greater intelligence sharing between allies and partners to disseminate intelligence on risks, which is also beneficial to the private sector. The paper recommends Congress direct the president to create or designate a national supply chain intelligence center that would integrate supply chain intelligence efforts from across the government with other members of the public and private sectors. It would also serve as the shared knowledge center for threats to the supply chain. https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/10/19/cyber-solarium-commission-outlines-recommendations-for-strengthening-the-supply-chain/

Shared by members

  • Share a news article with the community

    It’s very easy, simply copy/paste the link in the textbox below.

Subscribe to our newsletter

to not miss any news from the industry

You can customize your subscriptions in the confirmation email.