Command by intent can ensure command post survivability

Sur le même sujet

• 

  4 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

  The Pentagon’s new space agency has an idea about the future

  By: Nathan Strout The Defense Department's next generation space architecture would consist of several layers based around a mesh network of small communications satellites, according to a document released by the Space Development Agency July 1. A request for information lays out an early outline of what that new satellite architecture would look like and how the commercial sector can contribute to the effort. The SDA is a new entity that the Pentagon established less than four months ago as part of the Trump administration's focus on reorganizing the military's space structure. The agency's initial goal is to develop a next generation space architecture for military satellites in the face of near-peer adversaries' growing interest in space. “In an era of renewed great power competition with an emergent China and a resurgent Russia, maintaining our advantage in space is critical to winning these long-term strategic competitions,” read a request for information posted to the Federal Business Opportunities web site. “These potential adversaries are developing and demonstrating multi-domain threats to national security much faster than we can deploy responsive, space-based capabilities.” The agency wants the new architecture to provide eight essential capabilities identified in a 2018 Pentagon report. In addition, the Pentagon wants to include development of deterrent capability, space situational awareness, a resilient common ground-based space support infrastructure, command and control systems and artificial intelligence-enabled global surveillance. The Space Development Agency's notional architecture is made up of several layers, each of which would contribute to at least one of the eight essential capabilities. They include: A space transport layer: A global mesh network providing 24/7 data and communications. A tracking layer: Provides tracking, targeting and advanced warning of missile threats. A custody layer: Provides “all-weather custody of all identified time-critical targets.” A deterrence layer: Provides space situational awareness—detecting and tracking objects in space to help satellites avoid collisions. A navigation layer: Provides alternative positioning, navigation and timing services in case GPS is blocked or unavailable. A battle management layer: A command, control and communications network augmented by artificial intelligence that provides self-tasking, self-prioritization, on-board processing and dissemination. A support layer: Ground command and control facilities and user terminals, as well as rapid-response launch services. The SDA's immediate goal is the development of a transport layer consisting of a mesh network for communications and data in low earth orbit. As the agency has stated previously, that effort will rely heavily on DARPA's Blackjack program - a project that will establish an initial transport layer with a 20 satellite constellation. The SDA wants to build sub-constellations around the Blackjack program to meet some of the needs it has identified, such as missile defense warnings and targeting, alternative positioning, navigation and timing services, and more. The constellation and associated sub-constellations will be made up of small mass-produced satellites in the agency's vision, ranging from 50 to 500kg. The next-generation space architecture posting is the first request for information that the agency has posted in its brief existence, and sets a tone for what it's looking for from the commercial sector. Specifically, the SDA wants to know what capabilities and concepts the commercial sector can bring to bear on satellite buses, payloads, appliques and launches. Any proposal should fall into at least one of the suggested layers, the SDA stated. “SDA intends to leverage investments made by the private sector in space capabilities (...), as well as industry best practices (e.g., mass production techniques for spacecraft buses, sensors, and user terminals),” stated the agency. Among other things, the agency wants proposals for the following items: Small and cheap payloads that can provide high-bandwidth links between satellites; software that can track missiles from low earth orbit; software that can facilitate autonomous space sensor collection, processing and dissemination, and alternative methods for positioning, navigation and timing in case GPS is unavailable. In addition, the SDA wants feedback on the overall structure of its notional architecture. The SDA is also interested in industry concerns about data rights, security and protection, acquisition approaches and more. In building this new architecture, the SDA is clear that it wants to be agile and flexible in adapting to new technology and threats, meaning it wants to be able to integrate upgrades within two year windows. While it's not clear in the document how quickly the SDA wants to have the new architecture in place, the agency does emphasize that it is looking for efforts that can be demonstrated in less than 18 months. Responses are due on August 5. The SDA plans to hold an Industry Day to connect with the commercial sector in the near future. The document's release comes shortly on the heels of Space Development Agency Director Fred Kennedy's resignation in late June. Kennedy was the agency's first director, having been originally appointed to the position by acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan when the agency was stood up March 12. Derek Tournear, the assistant director for space within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering, was named the acting director of the agency June 24. Prior to taking the assistant director position, Tournear was the director of Harris Space and Intelligence research and development. He has also served stints at the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. A Department of Defense spokesperson stated that Kennedy stepping down would not change the mission of activities of the agency. All of this comes as the U.S. military has worked to revamp its efforts in space. In addition to the stand up of the SDA, the Trump administration is also pushing for the creation of Space Force, a proposed sixth branch of the military that would be housed within the Air Force. While the Senate Armed Services Committee endorsed a version of Space Force, the House Armed Services Committee proposed a Space Corps, which would not be an independent branch of the military. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2019/07/03/the-pentagons-new-space-agency-has-an-idea-about-the-future/

• 

  23 mars 2022 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  En Europe, les industries de Défense se préparent à la hausse des commandes

  DÉFENSE En Europe, les industries de Défense se préparent à la hausse des commandes De nombreux gouvernements européens ont annoncé de fortes augmentations de leurs budgets militaires, comme l'Allemagne (+ 100 Md€) et la Suède, qui passera ses dépenses de 1,3% à 2% du PIB et envisage une intégration dans l'OTAN, de même que la Finlande. En France, la Loi de programmation militaire (LPM) 2019-2025 prévoit de porter son effort de 40,9 Md€ cette année à 50 Md€ en 2025 (soit 2,5 % du PIB), à raison de 3 Md€ supplémentaires par an. Cette loi pourrait être suivie d'une programmation plus ambitieuse à partir de 2025, Emmanuel Macron ayant annoncé, le 2 mars, qu'il « amplifiera l'investissement dans la Défense ». La base industrielle et technologique de défense (BITD) française devrait connaître une forte augmentation des commandes, en particulier Dassault Aviation (Rafale), Airbus Defence and Space (avions de combat et de transport, drones), Thales (radars, sonars, cybersécurité...), Nexter (blindés et armement terrestre...), MBDA (missiles), Naval Group (frégates, sous-marins...) et les milliers de PME et d'ETI qui fournissent les armées. « Nous sommes aux côtés de la France qui poursuit un double effort, à la fois capacitaire et technologique, face à des menaces croissantes et de plus en plus complexes », explique Philippe Keryer, Directeur général adjoint Stratégie, Recherche et Technologie. Conserver les compétences et attirer des jeunes est « crucial », estime Pierre-Eric Pommellet, PDG de Naval Group, qui rappelle que « certains métiers sont en tension ». Pour la première fois, l'Union des industries et métiers de la métallurgie (UIMM) est présidée par un dirigeant du secteur, Eric Trappier, PDG de Dassault Aviation. Le Monde du 23 mars

• 

  16 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Does the Pentagon need a chief management officer?

  By: Jerry McGinn Ms. Lisa Hershman, an accomplished former CEO who has been serving in the Department of Defense for over two years, received Senate confirmation by unanimous consent to become the DoD chief management officer shortly before Christmas. At the same time, however, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act required two studies from the DoD that openly posit eliminating the CMO function altogether. What gives? The mixed signals coming out of these discordant events underscore the fact that the theory behind the current CMO function (and similar efforts over the past two decades) does not match the reality of the business structure of the DoD. The solution that will ultimately work best for the DoD is one that truly takes a business-based approach to DoD business operations. The CMO function is the latest in a long-running series of efforts since the early 2000s to reform the business of defense. The essential idea has been to bring the best commercial business practices into DoD business operations through organizational and legislative changes. While the rationale for these respective initiatives is unassailable, they have struggled in execution. The CMO and its predecessor organizations, for example, have focused on the acquisition or certification of DoD business systems. These efforts, however, have largely devolved into bureaucratic battles over resources and authorities, pitting the business-focused organization against the formidable military departments and the “fourth estate.” Whatever the outcome, the business-focused organization ends up being seen as weak and ineffective. Why is that? Having worked for years in and around these respective efforts in both government and industry roles, I have come to the conclusion that these well-meaning initiatives are just the wrong type of solution. This is largely because their respective organizations, often despite strong leadership and empowered by various degrees of legislative authority, have not had the bureaucratic throw-weight to succeed in Pentagon battles with the services and the fourth estate. The solution to this challenge, however, is not to further tinker with the CMO's authority or to create a larger or different CMO organization. Part of the solution is to recognize that while the DoD is not a business, it is in many ways a businesslike organization. There are no profit and loss, or P&L, centers in the DoD, but the military departments frankly function in much the same way as a P&L line of business. The services are directly responsible for training and equipping their soldiers, sailors and airmen just as P&L leaders are responsible for delivering products and solutions on time and profitably. Likewise, fourth estate entities such as the defense agencies and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have direct responsibility over their respective functions. Harnessing the power and authority of these organizations through the training and enabling of good business practices is a much more natural fit for the DoD. Devolving responsibility in and of itself is not the answer, however. The other part of the solution is accountability. Commercial businesses do not have a CMO function. Instead, well-run businesses are led by strong executives who are responsible and accountable for delivering results to their employees and shareholders. Those that succeed are rewarded, while those that fail are replaced. The same goes for the DoD. DoD leadership should focus on establishing business-reform objectives for each major DoD organization, and then holding leaders of these respective organizations accountable to the achievement of measurable business goals. This should be driven by the secretary and the deputy, and enabled by a much smaller CMO function. Secretary Mark Esper appears to be headed in that direction in his recent memo on 2020 DoD reform efforts, which focuses the CMO's efforts on the fourth estate and makes the services directly responsible “to establish and execute aggressive reform plans.” That is the right approach. In short, the DoD does not need a management organization to oversee the business of defense; it needs to enable its leaders to utilize business best practices, and then hold these leaders accountable for results. Jerry McGinn is the executive director of the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. He previously served as the senior career official in the Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy at the U.S. Defense Department. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/15/does-the-pentagon-need-a-chief-management-officer