BAE Systems to Support Critical IT Infrastructure for U.S. Marshals Service

Sur le même sujet

• 

  5 octobre 2023 | International, Naval

  General Dynamics Electric Boat Awarded $967 Million Contract Modification for Virginia-Class Submarines

  The cost-plus-fixed fee modification to a previously awarded contract totals $967,185,528.

• 

  14 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Lockheed-Boeing Battle Heats Up as USAF Looks to Buy F-15EX

  The F-35 maker is fighting to keep its monopoly on the Air Force's fighter-jet shopping list. While it's not unusual for companies to battle one another for weapons deals, these fights often occur behind the scenes, as lobbyists and executives spar inside the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. But the fight over whether the U.S. Air Force should buy one or two types of $80 million fighter jets is spilling into the public view, in the pages of the trade press and in think tank reports. Air Force leaders say they need both the F-35 Lightning II, the newest fighter in the U.S. military arsenal, and the F-15EX, the latest version of the twin-engine jet first flown in 1972. Early last year, Lockheed began to fight back against Boeing's reappearance on the service's tactical-jet shopping list.The battle became a war in July when the Air Force placed a $1.2 billion order for eight jets and said it might spend up to $23 billion to buy up to 144 new F-15s in the coming years. It's rare for a conservative think tank to explicitly call for canceling defense programs; typically, they argue for increasing defense spending and buying more weapons. But the influential Heritage Foundation has consistently urged the Air Force not to buy the F-15EX. “I'm just kind of surprised by the broadsides that have been occurring lately,” Jeff Shockey, vice president of global sales and marketing for Boeing Defense, Space & Security and Boeing Global Services' government services portfolio, said in an interview Friday. The stakes are also higher now as defense spending has flattened and not expected to grow in the coming years. The latest attacks on the F-15 come as Congress is reviewing the fiscal 2021 defense spending and policy bills. J.V. Venable, a retired Air Force F-16 pilot who is a senior research fellow at Heritage, compared the F-15EX to antiquated dial-up internet. “In deciding to fund the acquisition of the F-15EX, Congress has chosen the dial-up option,” he argued in Defense One last month. “When the Air Force signs that contract, it will be stuck with already-dated equipment for the next 30 years.” This week, the Mitchell Institute, the Air Force Association's internal think tank, published a report that argues the F-15EX “ may address immediate shortfalls, but it ultimately fails to anticipate or prepare for a much more demanding future combat environment.” More than a decade ago, as the F-35 struggled with a long list of development problems and cost overruns, Boeing and its surrogates pushed Air Force leaders to consider buying new F-15s or even Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. Now as the service prepares to buy new F-15s for the first time in nearly two decades, the script has flipped. The Air Force appears to have been persuaded by arguments that the F-15 is cheaper to fly than the F-35, and can more easily accept new applications and weapons. But Lockheed is firing back with arguments that the fifth-generation F-35 has stealth, weapons, sensors, and data capabilities that make it a far superior choice. “We believe the F-35 is a superior platform,” said Michele Evans, the president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, in an interview Thursday. "With its fifth-[generation] capabilities, we believe it brings capabilities that other platforms can't.” The F-15EX is intended to replace F-15C Eagles, planes that are largely flown by the Air National Guard for homeland defense. The F-15C is considered an air superiority fighter — meaning it's fine-tuned for air-to-air combat — and cannot strike ground targets. But the Air Force also flies the ground-pounding F-15E Strike Eagle, of which the F-15EX is a modernized derivative. “The F-35 and [F-15]EX are very complementary to one another,” Shockey said. “They do very different mission sets.” Evans, who oversees Lockheed's combat aircraft projects, said she does not view the F-15EX as a threat to the F-35. “I certainly respect the Air Force, that they've made a decision to procure the F-15EX and we're going to continue to make sure that we're driving upgrades and capabilities into the F-35 to keep it competitive and keep it the platform of choice for the U.S. Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps and our partner and [foreign military sales] nations,” she said. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/09/lockheed-boeing-battle-heats-usaf-looks-buy-f-15ex/168425/

• 

  8 mai 2019 | International, Terrestre, C4ISR

  The Army looks to build up its cyber arsenal

  By: Mark Pomerleau The Army is building a new tactical cyber force and it's going to need an arsenal. Immediately stocking one is another story, however, because “offensive cyber” tools are currently developed and owned by U.S. Cyber Command for the joint mission, so the Army is working on how to best equip its teams' specific needs. The Army's 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion (CWSB) will be capable of conducting localized cyber effects through the electromagnetic spectrum, rather than the IP-based operations conducted by Cyber Command, though it might have a tie-in with these forces and capabilities. The CWSB will operate as an Army Cyber Command asset. It will live at the division level with 12 expeditionary cyber teams, each consisting of 45-person detachment-sized elements that will be in support of brigade combat teams and arrayed over that brigade's battlespace on the ground. They will likely operate alongside companies. In order to prepare these new cyber teams, the Army will have to work through the Joint Cyber Warfighter Architecture (JCWA), a singular approach to tools and platforms for high-end, remote cyber operators established by Cyber Command. “By defining that architecture, then Cyber Command encourages the service cyber components with their acquisition entities to propose capabilities that would meet that architecture,” Ronald Pontius, deputy to the commanding general at Army Cyber Command, told Fifth Domain on the sidelines of an industry conference May 1. “Cyber Command should lead the architecture and standards, then they should be looking to the services to actually build the capability.” The JCWA is intended to guide capability development across all the services, as Cyber Command doesn't want capabilities designed and used by one service. How that translates into equipping these Army-specific entities requires working out “synergies” between that tactical force and the larger force, so determining what common and custom tools the CWSB uses will be in concert with the joint Cyber Command forces. “It all has to be integrated from top to bottom,” Kenneth Strayer, deputy program manager for electronic warfare and cyber at Program Executive Office-Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, told Fifth Domain. “All the way from sanctuary through developing capabilities to delivering capabilities. This all has to be integrated and it's all nested on Cyber Command and ARCYBER, [which] is a component, and the tactical units are all nested under ARCYBER.” Strayer added that he wouldn't separate them, but obviously the needed capabilities will be different depending on the placement of units, either in the close fight on the ground or in remote sanctuary. Questions Army Cyber Command leaders will have to wrestle with regarding using tools from the joint force at the tactical level include what infrastructure forces will operate on, and whether the tool will be attributable or not. Pontius said generally tools should be 100-percent attributable in the tactical space [letting victims know the United States is attacking them as a deterrent of further action], while that is not always the case in the joint environment. Having the CWSB in Army Cyber Command and not distributed throughout the service, he added, aids in answering these questions, optimizing tool development, and keeping the force trained and certified much more efficiently than if members of this force were spread out across different Army entities. One way the Army is potentially benefiting the CWSB separate from the joint mission is a recent $1 billion contract for research and development work in support of the cyber mission. Contractors awarded are tasked with providing research into cyber and electromagnetic activities (CEMA) capabilities. The contract currently is not asking for any materiel development. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/army/2019/05/06/the-army-looks-to-build-up-its-cyber-arsenal/