27 août 2019 | Information, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Avoiding past mistakes: Are the Army’s modernization plans on the right course?

By: Jen Judson

WASHINGTON — To avoid past mistakes that have all but crippled the Army's ability to procure new equipment, the service should ensure its top modernization priorities are aligned with its emerging warfighting doctrine, which could mean rearranging some of its top efforts, conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation is arguing in a new report.

The assessment comes at a time when the Army is preparing to release a new modernization strategy in short order.

“From 2002 to 2014, for a variety of reasons, nearly every major modernization program was terminated,” the report's author Thomas Spoehr writes. Spoehr is the director of the Center of National Defense at Heritage. His former Army career was partly spent helping to develop the service's future year financial plans.

Spoehr acknowledges that with the advent of a new four-star command — Army Futures Command — the programs envisioned to modernize the Army “are well-conceived,” but urges the services to look through a lens of how its priorities measure up in Multi-Domain Operations — a concept under development that will grow into its key warfighting doctrine.

Spoehr also warns the Army's leaders that there needs to be a balance “of the lure of technology with the necessity" to buy new equipment.

The service is steadfastly marching down a path to modernize and develop its capability in Long-Range Precision Fires, Next-Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the network, air-and-missile defense and soldier lethality, in order of importance.

But Spoehr is proposing to drop NGCV and FVL to the bottom of the list because they would serve less effective roles when carrying out operations in an environment where territory is well defended against enemies like Russia and China.

“The need for long-range precision fires and a precision-strike missile with a range of 310 km, for example, is grounded in the need to strip away Russian surface-to-air missile batteries and gain access,” Spoehr writes. “The linkages of other programs and initiatives are not as obvious and would benefit from an Army effort to make the connections either more explicit or reconsider requirements.”

Spoehr points out that it's not clear, for example, how a Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft and a Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft “might survive against near-peer sophisticated integrated air defense capabilities like the Russian's capable Pantsir-S1 SA-22 system.

“Even if the aircraft's speed is doubled or tripled, it will not outrun the Pantsir's 9M335 missile,” he writes.

“Nowhere in the MDO concept is a compelling case made for the use of Army aviation, combined with a relative youth of Army aviation fleets,” he adds.

Instead, Spoehr said, the priorities “should be based on an evaluation of current versus required capabilities, assessed against the capability's overall criticality to success, and all tied to a future aim point-2030, by a force employing MDO doctrine.”

This means, he argues, that the Army's network should be prioritized just below LRPF, followed by AMD and soldier lethality. Ranked at number five and six would be NGCV and FVL, respectively.

According to Spoehr, “nothing has come forward to suggest that there is a technological advancement that will make a next generation of combat vehicles significantly better.”

Additionally, the Army should not try to force the key requirement of making its Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle replacement — the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle — robotically operated or autonomous until the network matures to support the capability, the report notes.

The Army needs a network “that is simple, reliable and less fragile than its current systems,” Spoehr says. “These capabilities may need to come at the expense of capacity,” which the Army appears to be doing, he notes.

Spoehr also suggests that the Army invest less in hypersonic offensive capability and more in defensive capability.

But ensuring effective modernization of the force and avoiding past failures is just as much a management challenge as it is overcoming technological and cost hurdles.

One of the phenomena Spoehr observed during his time serving in the military, particularly at the Pentagon, is what he calls “groupthink,” where those who spend time together begin to think alike and make decisions without those around them questioning actions. Additionally, subordinates tend to avoid disagreeing with those in charge.

Groupthink has been the culprit when it comes to major failure in development and acquisition programs in the past, so the Army should “zealously promote critical thinking and avoid groupthink,” Spoehr writes. The service should “promote a free and open dialogue in journals and forums” and “exercise caution when senior leaders endorse specific system attributes or requirements to avoid closing down discussion.”

The report acknowledges that the Army “is making a concerted effort to change to meet the future,” such as standing up AFC and aligning its future doctrine with materiel solutions more closely.

It's important the Army keep sight of what it's actually trying to do with its future capability, the report warns. “Rather than seeking to match and exceed each of our adversary's investments, the Army must focus on enabling its own operational concepts and seeking answers to tough operational and tactical problems,” it states.

Elsewhere in the overarching analysis, Spoehr recommends growing the force, as well ensuring its effective modernization to include roughly 50 Brigade Combat Teams and an end-strength of at least 540,000 active soldiers.

He suggests reducing investment in infantry brigade combat teams in favor of armored BCTs, but also to keep capability to fight in a counter-insurgency environment as well, such as keeping the Security Force Assistance Brigades. The third such formation is preparing to deploy to Afghanistan.

The Army also needs to grow faster and must find ways to resolve recent problems with recruiting, Spoehr said, recommending that the service grow at a rate faster than 2,000 regular Army soldiers per year.

And force allocation should also be reconsidered, Spoehr argues, recommending that the Army should create a new field headquarters in Europe and, when appropriate, do so in the Indo-Pacific.

Overall, “the task for the Army is no less than to develop a force capable of deterring and defeating aggression by China and Russia, while also remaining prepared to deal with other regional adversaries (Iraq and North Korea), violent extremist organizations, and other unforeseen challenges,” Spoehr said.

What's hard for the Army is that it lacks “the certainty of a single principal competitor” — the Soviet Union in 1980s, during the last buildup, for example, he noted.

Because of the complicated global environment, Spoehr advocates for the Army to shift from thinking about a 20-year lead time for new, transformative capabilities and instead take a constant iterative and evolutionary approach to building the force. Under AFC, the Army is attempting to do just that.

The Army can't wait “until the future is clear before acting,” he adds. “When dealing with a 1-million-person organization, equipping, training, and leader development typically takes at least a decade to make any substantive change,” Spoehr said. “The Army must therefore make bets now to remain a preeminent land power.”

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/08/22/avoiding-past-mistakes-are-the-armys-modernization-plans-on-the-right-course/

Sur le même sujet

18 septembre 2020 | Information, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

Defense industry worries Congress will punt budget deal into 2021
Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― As Congress readies a stopgap spending measure this week, the defense industry is girding for a long-term funding patch that could delay both new procurement programs and needed fiscal certainty into next year. Democrats say they are considering whether to offer a continuing resolution that would stretch 2020 funding levels into next February or March, or whether to go along with a stopgap through mid December, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is seeking. Trade groups said this week that passing a CR by the Sept. 30 deadline is better than a government shutdown, but they warned that because CR's ban most new start programs, that will add more turbulence for firms already suffering from pandemic-related economic shocks. “As threats continue to multiply and the COVID-19 crisis continues, sustained and stable funding in national security takes on new meaning for the U.S. military and the defense industrial base that supports it,” Aerospace Industries Association President and CEO Eric Fanning, said in an email to Defense News. AIA represents roughly 340 manufacturers. “Relying on continuing resolutions, for any length of time, removes that stability, undermining the shared supply chain and endangering the solid progress made in readiness and modernization over the last several years.” Defense advocates say continuing resolutions of any length are inefficient for government and disruptive to the budget certainty that businesses need in order to make decisions, but the pandemic and sagging economy add new wrinkles. Smaller defense firms, many hit by cash flow problems related to the pandemic, were of particular concern to shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries, which was among large firms that accelerated millions of dollars in payments to help small suppliers over recent months. “The effects of a long term continuing resolution can be harmful to the defense industrial base by delaying or prohibiting work,” HII spokesperson Beci Brenton said in an email. “Our greatest concern with a long term CR is the impact to our thousands of suppliers located in all 50 states who are already impacted by the COVID pandemic.” Despite a longstanding deal on the budget top lines, only the House has passed full-year appropriations bills, which means Congress will need more time to pass an FY21 appropriations package. Congress would likely need to draft a CR this week and pass it next week to avert a government shutdown. That's just what House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters this week that House leaders are planning. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., say they have agreed to a “clean” CR, free of policy riders. It's not expected to include COVID relief funds, but further details have not been announced. Beyond timing, the defense industry is also watching which anomalies Congress includes to permit select new start programs. The White House sent Congress a list that included the Columbia-class submarine and new W93 submarine-launched nuclear warhead, as well as funds to ramp up the new Space Force ― along with select federal programs across multiple agencies. The National Defense Industrial Association's senior vice president, Wesley Hallman, said delaying new starts means delaying new revenue streams for companies and, for some, new hiring decisions. “How many new starts are planned for 1 October, I can't tell you, but if we go to March or February there are more new starts over that entire period,” Hallman said. “If it's bad in October, it's really bad if it's going into March.” Professional Services Council president and CEO David Berteau, whose group represents services contractors across government, said his member are worried about long delays for a budget deal. “Our members are always concerned because it slows down new contract awards, and it adds uncertainty to every program manager ― not only in the Defense Department, but across the federal government ― because they don't know how much money they're going to get or when they're going to get it,” Berteau said. The duration of the CR has special political dimensions this year. If the bill runs through December, President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate would negotiate over the final spending package. Depending on the outcome of the election, a CR that stretches into the next calendar year could be negotiated by a President Joe Biden or a Democratic-led Senate, which would give Democrats more leverage. Berteau was concerned that Biden, like Trump in 2017, would not enter office Jan. 20 ready to immediately hammer out a budget deal. It took until that April for Trump to sign a deal, and it took President Bill Clinton ― who entered office under similar circumstances in 1993 ― until that June. “If you don't get it now, history says you won't get it for six months,” said Berteau, “and that's debilitating for industry.” “Our members are always concerned because it slows down new contract awards, and it adds uncertainty to every program manager ― not only in the Defense Department, but across the federal government ― because they don't know how much money they're going to get or when they're going to get it,” Berteau said. The duration of the CR has special political dimensions this year. If the bill runs through December, President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate would negotiate over the final spending package. Depending on the outcome of the election, a CR that stretches into the next calendar year could be negotiated by a President Joe Biden or a Democratic-led Senate, which would give Democrats more leverage. Berteau was concerned that Biden, like Trump in 2017, would not enter office Jan. 20 ready to immediately hammer out a budget deal. It took until that April for Trump to sign a deal, and it took President Bill Clinton ― who entered office under similar circumstances in 1993 ― until that June. “If you don't get it now, history says you won't get it for six months,” said Berteau, “and that's debilitating for industry.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/09/16/defense-industry-worries-congress-will-punt-budget-deal-into-2021/
9 février 2018 | Information, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Faire affaire avec l'OTAN
Canada has a new representative at the NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA / NCI Agency). Ms Joanna Glowacki started this fall and is ready to help Canadian companies connect with NATO ICT business opportunities. She can be reached at joanna.glowacki@ncia.nato.int or +32 (0)2 707.82.27 As you know, Canada has established a new Liaison Officer at the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) in Capellen, Luxembourg. Lieutenant-Colonel Martin Bedard arrived in the summer and some of you have already been engaging with him. Martin's email address is calo@nspa.nato.int Canadian companies are encouraged to continue to track NATO business opportunities on the websites of the two NATO Acquisition Agencies – NCI Agency and NSPA. For companies tracking ICT business opportunities at NATO, it is recommended that you follow the NCI Agency Bulletin Board website https://www.ncia.nato.int/Industry/Pages/Home.aspx for the latest updates on current business opportunities. If you see an opportunity of interest, shown on the website as a Notice of Intent (NOI), notify the Canadian Delegation to be added to the bidders list. There is no cost to receive the bid package and no commitment to bid once on the bidders list, although for each and every opportunity you must notify Canada's Delegation to NATO at BNATO.industry@international.gc.ca to be added to the bidders list. For NATO business opportunities in the area of logistics and maintenance, the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) website is: http://www.nspa.nato.int/en/index.htm. You should also register your company as a supplier of NSPA – there is no cost and no commitment to register your company – so you start to receive notices of NSPA business opportunities in your domain. You can register at the following link: http://www.nspa.nato.int/en/organization/procurement/supplier.htm. You can also view “Future Business Opportunities” on the NSPA database: http://www.nspa.nato.int/en/organization/procurement/fbo.htm. Right click on an item of interest for more detail. Check out as well the “Request for Proposal” opportunities at the same site – right side of page. You can also look at the following webpages for general information: Guide to navigating NATO procurement: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-connecting-foreign-markets/nato-faqs-guide-procurement.page Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about NATO business opportunities: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-connecting-foreign-markets/canadian-industry-doing-business-nato-faqs.page Guide pour la navigation- Acquisitions au sein de l'OTAN: http://www.forces.gc.ca/fr/faire-affaires-acceder-marches-etrangers/otan-faqs-guide-acquisition.page Réponses aux questions fréquemment posées sur les opportunités d'affaires de l'OTAN: http://www.forces.gc.ca/fr/faire-affaires-acceder-marches-etrangers/industrie-canadienne-faqs-otan.page
18 novembre 2019 | Information, Autre défense

Canada needs to start seeing Russia and China as 'adversaries,' says ex-CSIS chief
Richard Fadden said Ottawa needs to acknowledge the United States is withdrawing from global leadership Murray Brewster Canada needs to be "clear-eyed" about the threat posed by Russia and China — and the power vacuum at the global level left by the United States' growing isolationism — a former national security adviser to prime ministers told an audience of military and defence officials Friday. "The risks posed by these two countries are certainly different, but they are generally based on advancing all their interests to the detriment of the West," Richard Fadden, former national security adviser to both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his predecessor, Stephen Harper, said in a speech to the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI) Friday. "Their activities span the political, military and economic spheres." Fadden, who also served as the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and as deputy defence minister, made the remarks at the CDAI's annual Vimy Dinner in Ottawa. He said his criticism was not political or aimed at any particular government, but was meant to prompt public debate about security and defence policies — a subject that was virtually ignored during the recently concluded federal election. Both China and Russia have demonstrated they are prepared to "use virtually any means to attain their goals," while the U.S. has effectively withdrawn from the world stage, Fadden said. That emerging vacuum means Canada will have to work harder with other allies to address global crises at times when the Americans are unable, or unwilling, to lead. 'Clear limits to what we will accept' But to do that, Fadden said, Canada will have to be "clear-eyed" about the way the world has changed over the last decade or more. Canada should "recognize our adversaries for what they are, recognize we have to deal with them, but draw clear limits to what we will accept," he said. Ottawa also has to recognize, he said, that the old post-Cold War world order "with comprehensive U.S. leadership is gone, and is not coming back in the form we knew." In some respects, Fadden's remarks are a more blunt and urgent assessment of the geopolitical landscape than the one Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered in a landmark speech in June 2017, when she warned Canada could no longer depend upon U.S. protection and leadership. The comments by the former top security official came just as French President Emmanuel Macron also was lamenting the loss of American leadership, saying NATO is facing "brain death" without Washington's full involvement. When he was director of CSIS a number of years ago, Fadden warned about increasing Chinese influence over Canadian municipal and provincial politics. He said during his speech Friday that "the West does not have its act together as much as it could and should" and its response to emerging threats has been dysfunctional. Meanwhile, Fadden said, the rise in violent radicalism in the West is no longer being confined to Islamist extremism. "Right-wing terrorism is growing and, like its cousin jihadist terrorism, it is a globalized threat," he said. "We will ignore it at our peril." His speech also touched on emerging threats in cyber warfare. Many western democracies have not felt threatened in the globalized world of the last three decades — but that era is ending now, said Fadden, and Canadians have to face new sources of risk. "This issue is especially visible in Canada," he said. "We are surrounded by three oceans and the U.S., so we don't really feel threatened when, in a totally globalized world, that is unrealistic." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-russia-china-fadden-trump-1.5357109

Toutes les nouvelles