27 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial

British Defence Ministry reveals why a drone program now costs $427M extra

By: Sebastian Sprenger

Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified the cost increase to Britain's Protector acquisition program. The program is said to now cost an extra £325 million, with £187 million of that attributed to a delivery delay.

LONDON — The British Defence Ministry's top civilian has identified in a letter to lawmakers the reasons why a drone acquisition program has experienced a near 40 percent hike in costs.

The Ministry of Defence decided to delay by two years the delivery of 16 General Atomic Protector RG Mk1 drones to replace the Royal Air Force's MQ-9 Reaper fleet, the letter to Parliament's Public Accounts Committee said.

Stephen Lovegrove, the ministry's permanent secretary, cited that decision as the main reason for the £325 million (U.S. $427 million) cost increase to the program, as £187 million of that could be attributed to the delay.

“The cost growth and time delay to the program imposed in July 2017 were outside of program tolerances but were the result of the need to ensure the affordability of the overall defence program,” Lovegrove wrote in his letter.

The MoD is currently in negotiations with the U.S. over a deal to build the first three of the 16 Protectors scheduled to be purchased for the RAF.

The final number of vehicles on order could eventually expand beyond 16 — subject to the MoD's fragile finances in the coming years unless defense gets a sizable increase in the Conservative government's next budget round due later this year.

The letter was sent Nov. 5 but has only recently been made public.

Lovegrove detailed further causes of the cost increase rise in the drone program, which was expected to cost £816 million when it was approved by the MoD in 2016.

Aside from the increased costs caused by the delay, the letter said that the fall in the value of the pound against the dollar accounted for £50.8 million of the price rise, and a new primary sensor cost another £64 million. Other unspecified program costs accounted for a further £23 million.

The pound has firmed up against the dollar a little since the Conservative Party won the general election in December, which may lessen the impact of increased costs for the moment.

The new primary sensor investment involves provision of an improved electro-optical and infrared sensor. The letter said the investment was to avoid future obsolescence issues.

Consideration is still being given to the purchase of what is known as a “due regard air-to-air radar” designed for vital detect-and-avoid duties on the platform.

Protector, which is the British name for its version of the new General Atomics MQ-9B SkyGuardian, is scheduled to achieve initial operating capability in November 2023, the letter read.

The vehicle will replace the current fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, which the RAF has operated almost constantly during the last few years over Afghanistan and the greater Middle East.

Lovegrove said the MoD had compared Protector with other options to meet the requirement but the General Atomics platform remained the best value for money.

“A comparison was made between: developing a new remotely piloted aircraft system capability (either collaboratively or nationally); procuring the current Reaper Blk 5 (as used by the US Air Force and others); and procuring Protector,” he said.

“This concluded that procuring Protector represented best value for money, as its higher performance meant that the operational task could be delivered by procuring fewer air vehicles. The 2-year delay and resultant cost increase have not undermined this value for money case ... it remains affordable despite the cost growth,” the permanent secretary added.

Lovegrove said the biggest problem for the Protector program was not the platform itself but the availability of trained crew in the run-up to initial operating capability.

“The most significant risk to the Protector program is the RAF's ability to generate and sustain the volume of trained personnel necessary to assure IOC in Nov 2023. The Protector work force builds on the current Reaper force; training and retaining sufficient remotely piloted aircraft system crews has historically proved challenging and is being closely monitored,” the letter said.

The Protector is expected to fly longer and hit harder than the Reaper. The UAV will also fly in nonsegregated airspace in places like the U.K .

in September, the MoD and General Atomics signed a significant deal to complete the test and evaluation activities required to fly the system in civil airspace. The first test and evaluation aircraft is due to be delivered next year subject to the successful completion of the production contract.

An initial production deal is currently in negotiation, with aiming of inking a deal in the next few months.

In a first for the system, the SkyGuardian version of the medium-altitude, long-endurance drone flew across the Atlantic Ocean in July from Grand Forks, North Dakota, to RAF Fairford in England. The flight covered 3,760 nautical miles in 24 hours and 2 minutes.

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2020/01/24/british-defence-ministry-reveals-why-a-drone-program-now-costs-245m-extra/

Sur le même sujet

  • Members of Congress look to make AI a priority

    26 septembre 2018 | International, C4ISR

    Members of Congress look to make AI a priority

    By: Jessie Bur Congress and the executive branch need to make a more concerted effort to address and prepare for the rise of artificial intelligence, Reps. Will Hurd, R-Texas, and Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said in a white paper released Sept. 25. The congressmen, who serve as the chairman and ranking member of the House IT Subcommittee, compiled information gathered in past congressional hearings and meetings with experts to argue for the criticality of federal input in the many facets of AI. “In light of that potential for disruption, it's critical that the federal government address the different challenges posed by AI, including its current and future applications. The following paper presents lessons learned from the Subcommittee's oversight and hearings on AI and sets forth recommendations for moving forward,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. “Underlying these recommendations is the recognition the United States cannot maintain its global leadership in AI absent political leadership from Congress and the executive branch. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends increased engagement on AI by Congress and the administration.” According to the White Paper, under current trends the United States is soon slated to be outpaced in research and development investments by countries like China that have prioritized artificial intelligence investment. “Particularly concerning is the prospect of an authoritarian country, such as Russia or China, overtaking the United States in AI. As the Subcommittee's hearings showed, AI is likely to have a significant impact in cybersecurity, and American competitiveness in AI will be critical to ensuring the United States does not lose any decisive cybersecurity advantage to other nation-states,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. Hurd characterized the Chinese investment in AI as a race with the U.S. “It's a race, we all know this, and one of the things we need [is] a national strategy, similar to what we've seen in the conversations around quantum computing yesterday at the White House. What we saw almost a decade ago when it came to nanotechnology. And part of that strategy does include increasing basic research, opening up data sets and making sure the U.S. is playing a part, leader on ethics when it comes to artificial intelligence,” said Hurd in a Sept. 25 press call. The paper applauded current investments in R&D, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's creation of the Artificial Intelligence Exploration program, and encouraged government hosting more “Grand Challenges” like those conducted by DARPA to encourage outside-government innovation. “I do believe the federal government has a role, because we're sitting on data sets that could be used as a backbone of a Grand Challenge around artificial intelligence,” said Hurd, who added that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, healthcare agencies and many other components of the federal government possess the data to administer meaningful AI competitions. “I think this would be a maybe a great opportunity for a public private partnership,” added Kelly on the press call. The paper also identified four primary challenges that can arise as AI becomes more prevalent: workforce, privacy, bias and malicious use. AI has the potential to both put portions of the workforce out of a job as more tasks become automated and increase the number of jobs for those trained to work with artificial intelligence. Hurd and Kelly called on the federal government to lead the way in adapting its workforce by planning for and investing in training programs that will enable them to transition into AI work. As with many technologies, AI has the potential to infringe on privacy, as intelligent products or systems such as virtual assistants constantly collect data on individuals. That data could be exploited by both the company that created the technology and hackers looking to steal personal information. “The growing collection and use of personal data in AI systems and applications raises legitimate concerns about privacy. As such, federal agencies should review federal privacy laws, regulations, and judicial decisions to determine how they may already apply to AI products within their jurisdiction, and—where necessary—update existing regulations to account for the addition of AI,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. The white paper also calls on federal agencies to make government data more available to the public for AI experimentation, while also ensuring that any AI algorithms used by agencies to “make consequential decisions about individuals” are “inspectable” to ensure that they operate without coded bias. According to Hurd, the question of whether and how that inspectable information would be made available to the public still needs to be asked. Finally, Hurd and Kelly called on government entities to consider how AI may be used to perpetuate cyber attacks or otherwise cause harm. However, while recommending that agencies look to existing regulation and statute and some limited changes to those statutes, the paper encouraged a similar hands off approach that the federal government took to the development of the internet. “The government should begin by first assessing whether the risks to public safety or consumers already fall within existing regulatory frameworks and, if so, consideration should be made as to whether those existing frameworks can adequately address the risks,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. “At minimum, a widely agreed upon standard for measuring the safety and security of AI products and applications should precede any new regulations. A common taxonomy also would help facilitate clarity and enable accurate accounting of skills and uses of AI.” https://www.federaltimes.com/federal-oversight/congress/2018/09/25/members-of-congress-look-to-make-ai-a-priority

  • Germany and allies accuse Russia of sweeping cyberattacks May 3, 2024
  • Pentagon denies it seeks to hide future budget information

    6 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Pentagon denies it seeks to hide future budget information

    By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is pushing back on reports that it seeks to classify previously public information about its future spending plans, with the department insisting that the transparency of this information that is public as part of the regular budget rollout process will not change. The Future Years Defense Program provides spending projections for how the Department of Defense plans to invest its money over the coming five-year period. While the numbers are not locked in and regularly change year by year, the projections can provide valuable information to the public and industry about what the department views as priorities and where programs might be going. Information about a legislative proposal from the Pentagon seeking to classify FYDP data was published Monday by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. Aftergood wrote that the proposal would “make it even harder for Congress and the public to refocus and reconstruct the defense budget.” It is traditional for FYDP numbers to be included as part of the budget rollout, as well as be included in program-by-program breakdowns. However, Pentagon spokesman Chris Sherwood said that the legislative language is not aimed at information that is currently made public during the normal budget process. Instead, it is focused on a requirement in the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act on what is provided to Congress. “The 2018 NDAA required a formal unclassified version of the FYDP report,” Sherwood said in a statement. “The Department has not to date complied with that request because we are very concerned that providing that level of detail for the outyears might put critical information at risk and breach classification standards." “The DoD is exploring all possible paths forward, including requesting relief from the new requirement, as well as trying to determine how much information can safely be public in addition to all the budget information already made available,” he continued. “It is important to note that there is a difference between a formal Unclassified FYDP report and the unclassified outyear data for any given program that people often refer to as the FYDP for a program. We have and will continue to provide the classified FYDP as we have since 1989. There will be no reduction in any currently provided information,” he added. Asked specifically if that meant information about the FYDP that is usually included in public budget documents provided to media, Sherwood said: “The legislative proposal would not affect or change how DoD currently provides budget information.” Whether that assurance will satisfy advocates of keeping the FYDP open is uncertain, but the DoD appears behind the ball on convincing Congress that less transparency is a good idea. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas., the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, said he had only learned of the proposal when reports emerged, but indicated that any attempt to limit information about the FYDP is unlikely to meet a warm reception on Capitol Hill. “Obviously my inclination is: That's a bad idea,” Thornberry said. “I have not heard the department's justification for it. But I would say they've got a pretty high evidentiary threshold to overcome, to get Congress [to] go along with classifying the five-year FYDP.” Thornberry said he understands the concern, elucidated in the DoD proposal, that modern computing techniques could allow a foreign competitor to gather information about American plans from the data. But taxpayers deserve to know how their money will be spent in the future, the former committee chairman said, and that outweighs such concerns at the moment. The House believes “that the greater good is the transparency with the American people. So that's our default position, I think in both parties,” Thornberry said. “They hadn't made their case to me yet, but I think it's going to be hard for them to overcome that default position.” The Pentagon ultimately benefits from more openness when it comes to discussions on the budget, said Tom Mahnken, a former Pentagon official who is now president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “It clearly is important to protect certain aspects of the U.S. defense budget from disclosure. The Defense Department has successfully met that challenge for decades,” Mahnken said. “But there is also a compelling case for disclosing how the Defense Department plans to spend its resources and whether its budget is aligned with its strategy. “Transparency ultimately helps the Defense Department make the case for the resources it needs in Congress as well as the public at large.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/04/03/pentagon-denies-it-seeks-to-hide-future-budget-information/

Toutes les nouvelles