11 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Congress wants five-year budget plan for European defense fund

By: Jen Judson

WASHINGTON — Congress wants the Pentagon to produce a five-year plan for the European Deterrence Initiative fund, much like what is required each year when the Defense Department rolls out its base budget request.

In the fiscal 2020 defense policy bill's conference report released Dec. 9, Congress gives the Pentagon a tight deadline to produce a future years plan for the EDI account for FY20 — no later than the end of the year — that covers “not fewer than the four succeeding fiscal years.”

Congress wants the defense secretary and the head of U.S. European Command to submit to congressional defense committees subsequent future five-year plans beginning in FY21 at the same time as budget requests are submitted.

The EDI account — initially called the European Reassurance Initiative — was created to help Eastern European allies deter Russia from further incursion into Europe following its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and continued military activity in the region.

The U.S. Army's presence at the time of the annexation had dwindled from roughly 200,000 troops in Europe in the 1980s to around 33,000 in 2015. The Army had only two permanently stationed brigade combat teams, had closed more than 100 sites since 2006, and was concentrated in Italy and Germany rather than along NATO's eastern flank.

The plans should contain a description of the “intended force structure and posture” of the assigned forces in Europe for the last fiscal year as well as “the manner in which such force structure and posture support the implementation of the National Defense Strategy,” according to the bill's report.

The plan should also detail infrastructure and military construction investments and the assessment of resources including cost estimates for each project needed to achieve requirements such as increased presence, exercises, training, enhanced pre-positioning of stocks and building partnership capacity, the bill noted.

The Pentagon should also include a timeline to achieve force posture and capabilities to include permanent posture requirements as well as a detailed account of what has changed from the previous year, according to the bill.

Additionally, the Defense Department is required to submit a report no later than the end of November 2020 and each year after summarizing in detail funds obligated for EDI for the past fiscal year, as well as a comparison of funds requested for the following fiscal year.

Under the bill, the Pentagon must also provide an interim briefing no later than the end of March 2021 and each year after covering the status of all matters to be included in the future years plans and reports on EDI.

Funding for EDI has continued to grow since its inception almost five years ago. In FY19, the Pentagon requested $6.5 billion, up from $4.8 billion in FY18 and $3.4 billion in FY17. Only in FY20 did the funding come down, when the Pentagon cut the account by 10 percent.

The Pentagon said the cut accounted for some one-time expenses such as military construction and a look toward increased burden-sharing from allies.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/10/congress-wants-five-year-budget-plan-for-european-defense-fund/

Sur le même sujet

  • Ch'tellerault : pour la société aéronautique TMH-AMS, "le militaire a sauvé la mise" en 2020

    18 janvier 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Ch'tellerault : pour la société aéronautique TMH-AMS, "le militaire a sauvé la mise" en 2020

    Depuis le début de la crise, l'État a tenu à soutenir les industriels de défense, en particulier les PME, à la fois en maintenant un niveau important de commandes de matériels et en débloquant des fonds de soutien. Tel est le message adressé hier par Geneviève Darrieussecq, la ministre déléguée à la Mémoire et aux Anciens Combattants, lors de sa visite à TMH-AMS à Ch'tellerault. Cette société aéronautique de 22 salariés conçoit et fabrique des bancs hydrauliques fixes et mobiles pour la maintenance au sol des avions et des hélicoptères civils et militaires. Elle travaille à 70 % pour la défense et à 50 % à l'export. Ses clients ? Les principaux donneurs d'ordre du secteur. TMH-AMS est l'une des cinq entreprises du groupe poitevin Techman-Head. Qui, à l'image de tout l'aéronautique, sort d'une année 2020 « compliquée, dixit le président Jean-Yves Taboni et le directeur général Philippe Jehanno. On a perdu 33 % de chiffre d'affaires. » Les deux dirigeants confirment que l'effort de l'État dans le domaine de la défense a été bénéfique pour leur groupe, dont l'activité militaire pèse 33 % : « Ça a sauvé la mise de nos deux entreprises qui travaillent majoritairement pour le militaire, TMH à Ch'tellerault et Novatec à Poitiers. » L'enjeu de la vaccinationUn autre élément a permis à Techman-Head de passer 2020 sans dommage : « Financièrement, le groupe est sain, solide et rentable. Notre capacité à développer des produits propres, et donc à ne pas dépendre uniquement de donneurs d'ordre, est un point fort. » Techman-Head « ne se fait guère d'illusions sur 2021. On n'attend pas de reprise avec le second semestre. » Cela n'empêche pas le groupe de se projeter déjà sur un redémarrage : « Il y aura des opportunités à saisir, il faudra être prêts, analyse Jean-Yves Taboni. Dans cette compétition internationale, la vaccination est un enjeu majeur. C'est là qu'on va gagner ou perdre la partie. Il ne faudrait pas prendre du retard vis-à-vis des Anglais ou des Allemands. » Le message – à la ministre – est passé. https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/chatellerault/chatellerault-pour-la-societe-aeronautique-tmh-ams-le-militaire-a-sauve-la-mise-en-2020

  • Augmented reality: Seeing the benefits is believing

    20 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR

    Augmented reality: Seeing the benefits is believing

    Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg and Jan Kallberg There is always something taken away when there are added functionalities. Does the concept of wearing augmented reality that digitally provides situational awareness create an upside that outweighs what it takes away for rifleman skills? The supercharged hearing, six senses for those equipped, broader view of sight, picking up smells, changes in lights and shadows, slightest change in the near environment: With all these close-action skills, will augmented reality create more distraction than enhancement? Is it too early to push digital situational awareness all the way down to the soldier in maneuver units? Is the upside present? Naturally, all new defense technology takes time to find its place in the fight. The helicopter was invented in the 1930s, and it found a limited military role in the Korean War, not meeting the military expectation of higher impact. But 15 years later, it played a pivotal role in the war in Vietnam. New technology is not only technology — the human component to properly implement it is likely slower than the technological advancements. It is always easier to question than explain, and we understand that many thoughts and thousands of work hours have gone into designing the early augmented reality systems. However, still we find our questions worth discussing because once fielded, utilized and put into action in a conflict, it is too late to raise any concerns. This is the time to discuss. How reliable are the sensors? Can the sensors be easily spoofed? Is it too early to push it all the way down to the individual soldier? A technologically advanced adversary will likely devote research already in peacetime to develop one-time use, tossable, simple, low-cost devices that can — in close combat — create spurious sensor data and derail augmented reality. If the integrity of the sensor data is in question, it will likely force commanders to refrain from using augmented reality. A similar, relevant issue is the extent of the augmented reality technology's electromagnetic signature. Will the interconnectivity of the squad's augmented reality compromise the unit and deliver information to the enemy? What we do not want to face is a situation where adversaries can pinpoint the location or proximity to U.S. forces by simple detection measures. So, worst-case scenario, inexpensive devices can nullify a significant U.S. investment in technology, training and tactics. Added to the loss of usable augmented reality equipment, the soldiers could be “HUD-crippled.” Navy aviators use the term “HUD-cripple” to visualize a complete dependency of heads-up displays in the cockpit. The “HUD-cripple” is the loss of traditional Navy aviator skills such as landing on an aircraft carrier without the heads-up display. Will soldiers have retained the skills to fight effectively without augmented reality if it goes down? Technical advancements bring us new options and abilities, and they increase mission success. But as with all uncharted territory, they also bring surprises and unanticipated outfalls. During the war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, military aviation instruments took a significant leap forward, going from World War II-styled gauges in fixed-winged Douglas A-1 Skyraider planes to an earlier version of today's instrumentation in McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle fighter jets rolled out as the war in Vietnam came to an end. Parallel with the military advancements, these avionic upgrades were transposed into civilian cockpits with increased complexity and variations, as jetliners are multi-engine airframes, where the number of information points and alarms became numerous in the jetliner cockpit. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, civilian aviation faced several accidents that were hard to explain with standard aviation physics and crash evidence. Instead, the conversations recorded in the black boxes revealed these fatal air crashes. Several of the deadly crashes could have had another outcome if the pilots had not become overwhelmed by all the blinking lights, alarms, buzzers and avionics grabbing their attention, so the pilots lost situational awareness and focus. The warnings, avionics and buzzers had the correct information, but the presentation was a tsunami of red blinkers and alarming sounds, lacking any hints on how to prioritize what needs to be done to recover from a dangerous in-flight emergency. In our view, the key to effective augmented reality is to structure and segment what matters and when. Units — and it varies from soldier to soldier — have different experience levels, so information has a variation in value down to the soldier level. In research design, you seek to explain as much as you can with as little as you can without losing rigor. The same challenge goes for augmented reality, where rigor could be said to be the integrity of the information. Transferred to the ground-fighting world, are we, as an engineering-driven nation, so technology-happy that instead of creating tools for increased survivability and mission success, we initially increase the risks for the war fighter and only correct these after we suffered a surprise in combat? We understand that implementing augmented reality is a long process that is just now at the stage of proving the concept; with setbacks and successes, where are we on the learning curve? In our view, synthetic learning environments have already matured and provide an ample opportunity to use the augmented reality technology with a high return on investment. The opportunities reside in knowledge transfer, sharing experiences, preparing for an ever-changing operational environment, and by doing so, increasing soldiers' survivability and ensuring mission success. The question is: Are we ready to rely on augmented reality in combat? Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point and a simulation operations officer. Jan Kallberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, and an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Defense Department. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/17/augmented-reality-seeing-the-benefits-is-believing/

  • NDIA’s Wesley Hallman on a liability shield and other defense priorities for the next stimulus

    4 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    NDIA’s Wesley Hallman on a liability shield and other defense priorities for the next stimulus

    By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON―As the Pentagon works to defray the coronavirus pandemic's impact on its network of suppliers, it's worked hand-in-glove with defense and aerospace trade associations to find and address problems in the supply chain. The National Defense Industrial Association, whose members stretch into the lower tiers of the defense industrial base, surveyed more than 700 small businesses to find that cash-flow disruptions remained a problem as the Pentagon and major defense firms increase payments to suppliers. Retired Air Force Col. Wesley Hallman is NDIA's senior vice president of policy, charged with monitoring Capitol Hill on matters of concern to defense, including annual budgets, acquisition and procurement reform. This week, he spoke with Defense News about NDIA's priorities as Congress mulls how to follow its third coronavirus response bill, worth $2.2 trillion and intended to speed relief across the American economy. With NDIA's finger on the pulse of the supply chain and recent survey, how do you interpret the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord's numbers, demonstrating more defense firms that have closed now reopening? What are you seeing among your members? As you know, A&S has been holding a call on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and we've been participating in all of those. The Defense Contract Management Agency has really been the clearinghouse for all these companies' challenges, and in fact we've been pushing our member companies that are seeing challenges to go to the website and fill in information about what their challenges are what they're seeing. And DoD has been responsive when something has closed down for whatever reason. Undersecretary Lord herself has picked up the phone to make calls to state governors to explain that we work very hard to ensure that the defense industrial base is considered essential. That was a question when people were starting to call for shelters in place. The very issues these companies have been seeing are things you're expecting: the result of closures, and sometimes those closures aren't state and local but on installations. Many contractors have to go to work on installations, and installation commanders are the mayors of their bases; they're tasked with the safety and security of their installations, and sometimes they've made the call to close facilities that have an effect on those performing contracts. There's also a growing concern on liability. There's uncertainty surrounding contractors' liability during the crisis for heeding calls to keep everything turned on. They also have to make sure that they're keeping their workforce safe and secure, and sometimes that's an issue as you look at reopening everything. Our last NDIA survey was really about what kind of things do you need to reopen to get to a new normal, where we're producing on contracts. Access to personal protective equipment is a concern, safety is a concern and more. DCMA has been following up with those companies to see what those issues are and what would allow them to reopen. We all know the supply chain ― and I'm sure you remember our report on the health of the defense industrial base at the beginning of the year ― but one of the things we highlighted is we have a relatively fragile supply chain already. This is a concern of the associations, the Pentagon and particular House Armed Services Committee members. Cash flow was also identified as an issue in NDIA's survey, and it's been a feature of DoD's press conferences. Ellen Lord said she was relying on the trade associations to help DoD understand how its accelerated progress payments are trickling down the supply chain to smaller firms, from the primes. How detailed is the information the associations are providing, and are the primes doing what's expected of them? What I have is anecdotal. It's proprietary data, and our members don't necessarily share that with us. I did get calls from all of the majors asking about accelerating payments through the supply chain, and one company was very explicit that “we have access to capital to get through this, but our supply chain doesn't.” Lockheed Martin has been very public with their commitment, and I know they're worried, and they're incentivized to keep their supply chain healthy because they've got to produce. The companies know their supply chains better than anyone else, so they're incentivized to push those dollars. It's not the amount of money but the velocity, and they understand that. This is me talking, but what the Pentagon wants to show ― and you've seen multiple groups saying, “not a dime for defense” ― is that the money that's being accelerated to these companies is not going to line anybody's pocket. This is to allow folks to survive. And beyond the national security aspect of this, which we could talk about forever, these are real companies with real people, doing real jobs that are key to our economy. They're as valid as any of the other small businesses that apply for the Paycheck Protection Program. So, ‘not a dime for defense' is I think a very shortsighted bumper sticker, because these are real people developing real capabilities for the defense of our nation. There have been some progressive lawmakers, as well as the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who have already pushed back on the Pentagon's upcoming request for funding. But more broadly, what would NDIA like to see legislatively in the next stimulus package, including policy―or are your priorities being addressed directly through the Pentagon? So there's only so much the Pentagon can do without appropriations. What we're looking at ― and we are a 501(c)3, non-lobbying organization, though we engage when asked what we think ― is we think, first off, there needs to be a plus-up in appropriations for FY20. We all know that there's a lot of challenges to performing on contracts right now that are going to extend the length of those contracts. There's been a slowdown in the ability to perform on contracts because of this, and in some cases it has made made delivery on contracts more expensive. We believe that should be reflected in appropriations, and that shouldn't steal from the future. You know, we have a National Defense Strategy, we have a future-years defense program, there's already president's budget in. We don't think that the FY21 should be paying the increased cost for FY20. So it would be a defense supplemental to cover the extra expense to produce on contract because of COVID-19. That's first and foremost. The other thing is ― and you may know the Defense Logistics Agency and others, they pay out of a working capital fund. Back in November, DLA stopped following the accelerated payment policy passed by Congress because their working capital fund didn't have the liquidity to make that happen. They backed off to a 30-day instead of a 15-day payout. Well, that was hard enough in November, December, January, February. But you start getting to March with COVID-19, and these folks that have already performed on contract and are waiting to get their money are waiting an extra 15 days because of the lack of liquidity in the working capital funds. That's not acceptable. So another thing we'd like to see is a bump up in the working capital fund so those accelerated payments can start happening the way that Congress intended. You referenced liability issues. There's been a movement afoot to shield companies from lawsuits as they seek to reopen that's been met with partisan pushback. Are liability protections something NDIA favors? You have to be very careful because you don't want companies to do something that is not smart or not safe, but you do have to look at it because there's a potential that this is a ripe avenue for liability suits. We would rather see that stemmed up front so we can focus on producing for the war fighter. On a positive note, are you seeing companies employing any novel solutions to problems stemming from the pandemic? The Defense Department has a Joint Acquisition Task Force where companies can go and say what they can produce. We have worked with a lot of companies who can do harnesses for parachutes or where they can shift production to make you masks or other PPE. So it's been kind of heartening to see. A lot of small businesses are saying, ‘Hey, we can do this.' And we direct them over to the Joint Acquisition Task Force, which can look at their capabilities and explore those. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/02/interview-ndias-wesley-hallman-on-a-liability-shield-and-other-defense-priorities-for-the-next-stimulus

Toutes les nouvelles