China emerges a key supplier for Ukraine’s defence SME sector - Army Technology

Sur le même sujet

• 

  21 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Mattis out: Defense secretary says his views no longer aligned with Trump

  By: Leo Shane III and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday announced he will step down from that post by the end of the February, leaving a significant leadership void in President Donald Trump's Cabinet. In his resignation letter Thursday, Mattis told Trump he was making the move to allow the president to find “a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with yours.” Mattis, a former Marine Corps general, is regarded highly among defense experts and is a well-respected military mind among lawmakers. On numerous occasions over the last two years, both Republicans and Democrats have lauded him as a calming presence within the turbulent Trump administration and a voice of reason for the sometimes impulsive commander in chief. He's also wildly popular among troops. A Military Times poll conducted in late September found that nearly 84 percent of troops had a favorable view of his work leading the armed forces. Among officers, the figure was almost 90 percent. But Mattis' relationship with Trump had appeared to sour in recent months as the president pushed for more aggressive military policies. Read Mattis' full letter here. Pentagon officials appeared caught unaware by sudden decisions made in the Oval Office on forming a new Space Force, sending troops to the southern U.S. border, and banning transgender recruits from the ranks. This week, Mattis and other top defense officials appeared to be surprised by Trump's plans for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria. On Twitter Thursday, Trump hailed Mattis for “tremendous progress” on helping to rebuild the military, including “the purchase of new fighting equipment” and “getting allies and other countries to pay their share of military obligations.” He said a new secretary of defense would be announced in coming days. Expect the names of Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Jack Keane, a retired Army general who was an early supporter for Trump, to pop up in discussions. In his resignation letter, Mattis said he was “proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years in ... putting the department on more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the department's business practices.” But he also took aim at several Trump policies that caused friction between the White House and the Pentagon. In the letter, Mattis wrote that he believes America “must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours.” That includes “treating allies with respect” and doing “everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values.” He also specifically mentioned both the defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations and NATO as “proof” alliances that have benefited America, The timing of the resignation — just a day after Trump ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, reportedly over the objections of Mattis — is noteworthy, especially given Mattis' reference to the ISIS coalition in his letter. Appearing on CNN shortly after the announcement, Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller did nothing to quell the idea that Mattis quit over the Syria decision, saying it is time for Trump “to get a new secretary of defense who will be aligned with the president” on a variety of issues, specifically calling out Syria and burden sharing among NATO allies. Miller also reiterated Trump's statements that it is time for Syria and Russia to take over the fight against ISIS, while railing against the decision of America to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. When asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if the administration intended to leave those countries as well, Miller said “I have absolutely no policy announcements of any kind to make tonight, whatsoever.” For months, speculation has swirled around whether Mattis could survive into year three of the administration, particularly after Trump labeled him as “sort of a Democrat” during an interview in October. However, he appeared to solidify his position within the administration in the days leading up to the mid-term elections, with a full-throated support for the president's decision to send troops to the border. Mattis said the February leave date is designed to ensure a new defense secretary is in place well before September's changeover of the chairman of the joint chief of staff. Just two weeks ago, Trump announced that Gen. Mark Milley, the current army chief of staff, would be his nominee to replace current chairman Gen. Joe Dunford. The announcement, coming almost 10 months before Dunford's term was over, caught many by surprise, and now sets up the military for a wholesale leadership change in 2019. It also represented another pressure point between Trump and the secretary. Both Mattis and Dunford supported the candidacy of Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer, but Trump picked Milley instead. Along with Dunford, all of the joint chiefs are in line to turn over in 2019, meaning a new secretary will also have a new group of the highest uniformed officials to work with. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/12/20/mattis-out-defense-secretary-says-his-views-no-longer-aligned-with-trump

• 

  8 novembre 2022 | International, C4ISR

  Four questions with France'€™s military cyber mission lead

  France foresees its future military force as heavily relying on systems of systems, whose networks are interconnected across the battlefield.

• 

  4 septembre 2018 | International, Terrestre, C4ISR

  New military drone roadmap ambivalent on killer robots

  By: Kelsey Atherton Drones are everywhere in the Pentagon today. While unpeopled vehicles are most closely associated with the Air Force and targeted killing campaigns, remotely controlled robots are in every branch of the military and used across all combatant commands. The fiscal year 2018 defense authorization contained the largest budget for drones and robots across the services ever, a sign of just how much of modern warfare involves these machines. Which is perhaps why, when the Department of Defense released its latest roadmap for unmanned systems, the map came in at a punchy 60 pages, far shy of the 160-page tome released in 2013. This is a document less about a military imagining a future of flying robots and more about managing a present that includes them. The normalization of battlefield robots Promised since at least spring 2017, the new roadmap focuses on interoperability, autonomy, network security and human-machine collaboration. The future of drones, and of unpeopled ground vehicles or water vehicles, is as tools that anyone can use, that can do most of what is asked of them on their own, that communicate without giving away the information they are sharing, and that will work to make the humans using the machines function as more-than-human. This is about a normalization of battlefield robots, the same way that mechanized warfare moved from a theoretical approach to the standard style of fighting by nations a few generations ago. Network security isn't as flashy a highlight as “unprecedented battlefield surveillance by flying robot,” but it's part of making sure that those flying cameras don't, say, transmit easily intercepted data over an open channel. “Future warfare will hinge on critical and efficient interactions between war-fighting systems,” states the roadmap. “This interoperable foundation will transmit timely information between information gatherers, decision makers, planners and war fighters.” A network is nothing without its nodes, and the nodes that need to be interoperable here are a vast web of sensors and weapons, distributed among people and machines, that will have to work in concert in order to be worth the networking at all. The very nature of war trends toward pulling apart networks, toward isolation. Those nodes each become a point at which a network can be broken, unless they are redundant or autonomous. Where will the lethal decision lie? Nestled in the section on autonomy, the other signpost feature of the Pentagon's roadmap, is a small chart about the way forward. In that chart is a little box labeled “weaponization,” and in that box it says the near-term goals are DoD strategy assessment and lethal autonomous weapon systems assessment. Lethal autonomous weapon systems are of such international concern that there is a meeting of state dignitaries and humanitarian officials in Geneva happening at the exact moment this roadmap was released. That intergovernmental body is hoping to decide whether or not militaries will develop robots that can kill of their own volition, according to however they've been programmed. The Pentagon, at least in the roadmap, seems content to wait for its own assessment and the verdict of the international community before developing thinking weapons. Hedging on this, the same chart lists “Armed Wingman/Teammate (Human decision to engage)” as the goal for somewhere between 2029 and 2042. “Unmanned systems with integrated AI, acting as a wingman or teammate with lethal armament could perform the vast majority of the actions associated with target identification,tracking, threat prioritization, and post-attack assessment," reads the report. "This level of automation will alleviate the human operator of task-level activities associated with the engagement of a target, allowing the operator to focus on the identified threat and the decision to engage.” The roadmap sketches out a vision of future war that hands off many decisions to autonomous machines, everything from detection to targeting, then loops the lethal decision back to a human responsible for making the call on whether or not the robot should use its weapons on the targets it selected. Humans as battlefield bot-shepards, guiding autonomous machines into combat and signing off on the exact attacks, is a possible future for robots in war, one that likely skirts within the boundaries of still-unsettled international law. Like its predecessor, this drone roadmap is plotting a rough path through newly charted territory. While it leans heavily on the lessons of the present, the roadmap doesn't attempt to answer on its own the biggest questions of what robots will be doing on the battlefields of tomorrow. That is, fundamentally, a political question, and one that much of the American public itself doesn't yet have strong feelings about. https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2018/08/31/new-military-drone-roadmap-ambivalent-on-killer-robots