7 mai 2019 | International, Naval, Sécurité
By: Jeff Martin and Geoff Ziezulewicz
From home port inspections to transiting the Taiwan Strait, down to Antarctica and through riverine waterways, the Coast Guard has arguably the most diverse mission set of the armed services.
But despite these responsibilities, the Coast Guard remains a red-headed stepchild of sorts, a military branch that falls under the Department of Homeland Security.
That designation resulted in a lack of payment for Coasties during the 35-day government shutdown of December 2018 and January 2019.
But in a chat during the 2019 Sea-Air-Space conference, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Karl Schultz said his service is back on track, even as it grapples with the same readiness challenges faced by other services. He also opined on why the Arctic matters more than ever, as well as the difference between the current heavy icebreaker and the coming polar security cutter.
The Coast Guard was hit hard during the government shutdown. What is the service doing to recover?
The shutdown was a shutdown. Obviously going 35 days without pay was tough on our members. Not having appropriations challenged us from a readiness standpoint. I think we have recovered.
Some of the things like boat maintenance periods, dry dock availabilities, we lost some calendar days on that. That's tough. But going forward, the Coast Guard's ready to do the nation's business.
What's the main message you try to convey to lawmakers on Capitol Hill regarding the last shutdown's impact on the Coast Guard?
I've been on the same message since I did my Hill visits before my confirmation hearing in April 2018. The Coast Guard's challenge is readiness. In a budgeting environment we've been flatlined for the good part of eight-plus years. The president rolled out a conversation about national security. It's fantastic and good for [the Department of Defense], they got a 12 percent [funding] bump in 2018.
Being in DHS, we weren't part of that conversation. We are a capital-intensive organization like the other armed forces, and we've got some bills. We've got some maintenance we've been kicking the can on, so since before I even assumed the duties of commandant I've been having this conversation about the readiness of the Coast Guard and testified recently about being at a readiness tipping point. We just need to enhance the understanding, the fact that it's a readiness conversation. We need to take ownership of it, and I need to convince folks that this is important for the nation.
Your predecessor hammered the need for icebreaker capacity. Where is the Coast Guard at regarding its next icebreaker?
Two weeks ago today, we award the contract to [VT Halter Marine] down in Mississippi to build the first polar security cutter. We used to talk about heavy icebreakers, now we talk about a polar security cutter. We just rolled out in April what we call the Arctic Strategic Outlook. It's a refresh on what was our Arctic strategic plan in 2013.
We talk about the Arctic through a different lens now. We talk about the Arctic as a competitive space. We've seen China, we see Russia investing extensively. China built icebreakers in the time since we updated our strategy. China's been operating off the Alaskan Arctic for a good part of the last six years on an annual basis. We're championing increased capabilities in the Arctic, we're championing better communications, better domain awareness, we're talking about innovation, we're talking about resiliency, we're talking about rule-based order. I want to see the Arctic remain a peaceful domain. China's a self-declared Arctic state. They're not one of the eight Arctic nations, so for me, for the service, its presence equals influence.
Right now, with one 43-year-old heavy icebreaker, Polar Star, that ship is basically a one-trick pony. It goes down to [McMurdo Station, the U.S. scientific outpost in Antarctica] every year and does the breakout, so the National Science Foundation can maintain their operations down there. The first polar security cutter, which probably hits the waterfront late 2023, 2024, is going to be almost a one for one. It's when we get to the second or third polar security cutter that we start to have some capacity. And again, presence equals influence. I'd like to see us in the Arctic, I'm not saying a fully annual basis, but on a lot more persistent presence up there. That's where we need to be as a nation.
What's the difference between today's heavy icebreaker and the future polar security cutter?
It's a designation change, it's the lexicon of adding “security” to the title. We thought it was more artful to capture the reflecting reality in how we talk about that ship. I think that narrative helped raise the bar in understanding.
5 juillet 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Sécurité
The Canadian government is moving to stage more than 350 soldiers and tactical airlift capabilities out of Edmonton to support firefighters in British Columbia.
13 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial
By: Aaron Mehta and Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force expects to resolve a safety issue with the cargo capability of its KC-46A Pegasus tanker within “months,” the service's top acquisition official said Tuesday. Will Roper said he is “confident” the issue would get fixed and that the problem,— which has led the Air Force to stop the tankers from flying with cargo in their holds — was not his top concern for the Boeing-made plane. “The issue with the locks was identified. We're working options currently with Boeing and their supplier,” Roper said at a breakfast hosted by the Defense Writers Group. “We're looking to our operators to tell us which one of the solutions that have been identified is the one that they prefer." In September, Defense News first reported that the KC-46 was restricted from carrying either cargo or people in the back of the aircraft. The restriction was set after a recent flight where cargo locks on the bottom of the aircraft's floor became unlocked, creating concerns that airmen could be hurt or killed by heavy equipment that suddenly bursts free during a flight. It has been a rough year for the KC-46. The Air Force suspended KC-46 flights at Boeing's production line in Everett, Washington, this February after finding debris. Then it paused all tanker deliveries in March as the service investigated the extent of the problem. The service began accepting tankers again later that month, only for deliveries to stop — and restart — in April due to similar problems. The cargo issue represents the fourth category 1 deficiency for the tanker, and the issues are becoming increasingly expensive for Boeing: The company is locked into a fixed-price contract, which means it is responsible for paying for a expenses beyond the initial $4.9 billion award for development of the aircraft. So far, the company has paid more than $3.5 billion of its own money to fund corrections to ongoing technical issues. The other three issues are: The remote vision system, or RVS — the camera system that allows KC-46 boom operators to steer the boom into a receiver aircraft without having to look out a window and use visual cues — provides imagery in certain lighting conditions that appears warped or misleading. Boeing has agreed to pay for potentially extensive hardware and software fixes, but the Air Force believes it could be up to four years until the system is fully functional. The Air Force has recorded instances of the boom scraping against the airframe of receiver aircraft. Boeing and the Air Force believe this problem is a symptom of the RVS' acuity problems, and that the problem will be eliminated once the camera system is fixed. Boeing must redesign the boom to accommodate the A-10 plane, which currently does not generate the thrust necessary to push into the boom for refueling. This problem is a requirements change by the Air Force, which approved Boeing's design in 2016. Last month, Boeing received a $55.5 million contract to begin work on the new boom actuator. Roper said the cargo issue “goes into the kind of normal deficiency space” and noted that it's the type of issue that is discovered by the normal testing process. The more long-term issues, such as the remote visual system, are “the areas I keep the most focus on,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/11/12/kc-46-cargo-solution-still-months-away/
9 décembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
By: Lauren Speranza and Nicholas Nelson The incoming Biden administration is expected to reassert ties with Europe, hoping to leverage America's allies and partners at NATO in the great power competition with China and Russia. As U.S. and European leaders set their collective agenda at the next NATO summit, a top priority should be establishing a NATO framework for emerging and disruptive technologies (EDT). For the United States, it is important that the alliance adapt together to defend against algorithms and bots, as much as bullets and bombs. Europe shares this mindset but differs from the United States on key defense tech issues, such as regulation, data, and stakes in national champion companies. To avoid the dangerous transatlantic rifts of the last four years, Brussels and Washington must bridge that gap and forge an alliance approach to EDT. NATO has acknowledged the need to harness the power of such technologies, but current efforts have produced innovation theater, as opposed to fundamental organizational change. NATO lags behind in critical areas such as 5G, hypersonics, artificial intelligence (AI), unmanned systems, and quantum science. In the past, NATO has used frameworks to get member states to agree on priorities, dedicate resources, and empower authorities to act. Looking to the next NATO summit, transatlantic leaders should champion an EDT framework built around four practical pillars: Establishing an organic assessment and coordination capacity at the strategic level. To fulfill its potential as the transatlantic coordinating tool on the security dimensions of EDT, the alliance needs an in-house capability to assess challenges driven by rapidly evolving technologies. It must examine the advantages and vulnerabilities of adversaries and competitors, as well as gaps in NATO's approach and capabilities. NATO must explore how EDT can be applied to tackle below-threshold threats, enhance defense planning, boost exercises, and support decision-making. Building on ongoing efforts, this should occur at the strategic level of the alliance, fusing civil and military perspectives and data to inform the development and introduction of cutting-edge EDT. It must also include a more robust mechanism for aligning capabilities and gaps across members, key partners, and the European Union. As defense budgets contract amidst the Covid-19 crisis, this approach will maximize return on investment and improve NATO's strategic edge. Seeding the market by improving engagement with industry. A strategic assessment function will not be valuable unless industry leaders are engaged and incentivized. NATO needs to connect to the private sector early and often, clearly communicating its priorities and requirements while providing accessible opportunities for industry, including non-traditionals, to readily sell into the alliance. Too often national and international defense organizations do not provide discernable paths to revenue for these companies, artificially limiting their industrial bases. The long lead times for these projects are often unattractive or unfeasible, especially for small companies and start-ups where radical innovation takes place. To remedy this, the alliance should look to the U.S. Department of Defense, which has succeeded in attracting startups and non-traditionals to its ecosystem through rapid awards, proof-of-concept contracts, and matching venture capital funds that start-ups receive. Enhancing standardization and interoperability by creating a system of systems. To meet the challenges of future warfare, the alliance must be able communicate and operate across militaries, capabilities, and domains. This requires more standardized, secure, and resilient platforms, systems, and infrastructure. NATO needs an EDT strategy for integration, not just innovation. Leading candidates for Biden's Pentagon team have emphasized this priority, supporting a CJADC2 concept – a “network of networks” to ensure reliable command and control. The alliance should leverage CJADC2 as a better framework for standardization and interoperability, paving the way for more complex joint operations. This requires a change in doctrine and a shift away from platforms to create a system of systems. Going forward, NATO needs this same approach to rapidly develop and deploy emerging defense and dual-use technologies for conventional and hybrid conflicts. This involves placing big, transformative bets on critical technologies, such as unmanned air and maritime systems, artificial intelligence (AI), and hypersonics. Coordinate with the EU. NATO should better leverage its ability to assign capability and spending targets to encourage its members to innovate. For instance, to complement the 2 percent of GDP defense spending benchmark, NATO could mandate that allies invest a certain portion of that into emerging technologies. It should also rework the 2 percent metric to include civilian investment in dual-use technologies that may fall outside of traditional defense budgets. Where NATO lacks the capacity to enforce these standards, the European Union brings the legislative and budgetary authority to promote them. NATO and the EU should coordinate research and development, provide seed funding toward these targets, and reinforce them with legal tools where possible. NATO and the EU should also initiate a strategic dialogue to address fundamental issues of tech governance and data sharing. The ability to employ emerging and disruptive technologies more effectively than competitors such as China and Russia will shape the global role of the United States and the transatlantic alliance in the coming decades. NATO has begun to talk the talk, but now it must walk the walk. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2020/12/08/nato-needs-a-strategy-for-emerging-and-disruptive-technologies/