Can a new Franco-German export agreement clear the air for Europe’s future fighter?

Sur le même sujet

• 

  25 septembre 2020 | International, C4ISR

  How the Marines want to provide information on demand

  Mark Pomerleau The Marine Corps wants to provide information on demand. However, sensing, harnessing and acting upon the vast amounts of data produced daily is an enormous challenge and now the Corps is turning to its 2019 blueprint for the information environment. “If you were building a house, you would never just hire plumbers, framers, roofers and say build me a house,” Jennifer Edgin, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Information, said Sept. 22 during a virtual panel as part of Modern Day Marine. Rather, she noted, most would start with the design of the house and how things connect. “That's how we began with our journey in the Marine Corps Information Environment Enterprise, by publishing a blueprint. That outlined our future state vision, our case for change and the major muscle movements that we were tackling with that,” she said. Published in March 2019 and classified as “controlled unclassified information,” the blueprint is a unified technical, physical and business model that documents the design of the Marine Corps Information Environment, Edgin told C4ISRNET in written responses to questions. It connects users with data to support a mission and codifies the policies, standards, services, infrastructure, technical design and architectural elements required to deliver capabilities to Marines. Extremely technical in nature, the blueprint is meant to guide the development and employment of capabilities needed and provides acquisition officers guidance and constraints while also conveying a common language. The first iteration covers five key areas to include digital transformation, governance, transitioning to the cloud, standardization and information dominance. “The future state of warfare requires the Marine Corps to think differently, encourage innovation, and embrace new business models for change that focus on enhancing the access, capabilities, and user experience throughout the Information Environment,” Edgin said. “This blueprint unites and aligns efforts to digitally equip Marines for the future ... The benefit of the blueprint is that it articulates information that cannot easily be visualized. For example, it is very easy to see physical assets like trucks or planes however, it is difficult to articulate information technology assets and visualize how they are employed.” Edgin noted yesterday that the Marine Corps Enterprise Network modernization plan followed the blueprint, taking the blueprint and breaking it down into action plans. Taken together, both documents are meant to guide a transformation the office of the Deputy Commandant for Information is seeking to realize, one that provides secure information on demand leveraging technologies such as cloud computing, resilient mesh networks and emerging technology such as machine learning. “Information doesn't have a geographic boundary,” she said, “you're seeing more of that cross functional team, cross functional approaches where we can really harness all of the best and brightest of authorities and ideas so that we can provide that information on demand.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2020/09/24/how-the-marines-want-to-provide-information-on-demand/

• 

  28 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Terrestre

  Can Army Futures Command Overcome Decades Of Dysfunction?

  By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. ARMY S&T CONFERENCE: How broken is the procurement system the new Army Futures Command was created to fix? It's not just the billions wasted on cancelled weapons programs. It's also the months wasted because, until now, there has not been one commander who can crack feuding bureaucrats' heads together and make them stop bickering over, literally, inches. “I have not always been an Army Futures Command fan,” retired Lt. Gen. Tom Spoehr told the National Defense Industrial Association conference here. But as he thought about his own decades in Army acquisition, he's come around. How bad could things get? When he was working in the Army resourcing office (staff section G-8), Spoehr recalled, the Army signals school at Fort Gordon wanted a new radio test kit that could fit in a six-inch cargo pocket. The radio procurement programmanager, part of an entirely separate organization, reported back there was nothing on the market under eight inches. The requirements office insisted on sixinches, the acquisition office insisted they had no money to develop something smaller than the existing eight-inchers, and memos shot back and forth for months. At last, Spoehr warned both sides that if they didn't come to some agreement, he'd kill the funding. Suddenly Fort Gordon rewrote the requirement from “fit in a cargo pocket” to “cargo pouch” and the procurement people could go buy an eight-inch kit. That kind of disconnected dithering is what Army Futures Command is intended to prevent. “I had the money, but nobody really had control of all of this,” Spoehr said. As a result, he said, “we probably spent six months trading memos back and forth on the size of the radio frequency test kit.” Multiplying that by thousands of requirements over hundreds of systems, and the wasted time and money gets pretty bad. But what's often worse is when the requirements are unrealistic and no one pushes back. Most notoriously ,Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki demanded easily airlifted Future Combat Systems vehicles that weighed less than 20 tons but had the combat power of a 60-ton M1 Abrams tank. The designs eventually grew to 26 tons, and the performance requirements came down, but by then FCS had lost the confidence of both Congress and Defense Secretary Bob Gates, who canceled it in 2009. It was another casualty of overly ambitious requirements drawn up by staff officers in isolation from the people who'd actually have to build them. Army Futures Command is structured to force those two groups to talk to each other from the start. Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/can-army-futures-command-overcome-decades-of-dysfunction

• 

  23 octobre 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Elbit, BAE Systems combining forces in US combat vehicle arena

  by Ashley Roque BAE Systems is remaining tight-lipped over whether it will compete in the US Army's revamped M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle replacement competition, but told Janes a newly forged partnership with Elbit Systems could help it outfit such proposals with added capabilities. On 21 October, the two companies announced that they were teaming up to develop and integrate “advanced operational capabilities” for ground combat vehicles. This partnership could lead to Elbit Systems' crew automation, vehicle protection, and other defensive and offensive systems being included on BAE Systems existing and future combat vehicles. “BAE Systems customers, both domestic and international, are looking to modernise their vehicles and enhance their capabilities,” company spokeswoman Amanda Niswonger wrote in a subsequent email. “Forming this partnership will provide more agility in developing solutions that will meet our customers' requirements and timelines.” Niswonger did not directly address which legacy and future programmes this partnership is geared towards, but said “we are discussing the OMFV [Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle] draft RFP [request for proposal] internally and have yet to determine if it is the right programme for BAE Systems to compete for”. BAE Systems dropped out of the army's previous OMFV prototyping competition in 2019 citing programme “requirements” and the “acquisition schedule”. Since then, the army has scrapped the effort and relaunched a new one with seemingly less stringent requirements, though the service has not yet released the final RFP. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/elbit-bae-systems-combining-forces-in-us-combat-vehicle-arena