DoD releases first new cyber strategy in three years

Sur le même sujet

• 

  7 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Lockheed Awarded $1.9B For One-Year F-35 Sustainment

  Steve Trimble The F-35 Joint Program Office awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.9 billion contract on Jan. 6 to maintain the global Lightning II fleet, support training and expand capacity for producing spares and repairing components. The annual award to the F-35's prime contractor follows a $1.4 billion contract in 2018 and $1.15 billion contract in 2019 for global sustainment services. The amount fluctuates along with investments in repair depots and fleet growth. “In 2020, we will continue to optimize and advance the sustainment system. We are confident F-35 sustainment costs will be equal to or less than legacy jets,” says Greg Ulmer, Lockheed's vice president and general manager for the F-35 program. Lockheed has committed to lowering the cost per flight hour of the F-35A to $25,000 by 2025. The U.S. Air Force paid about $44,000 per flight hour to operate the aircraft in 2018. Some defense officials, including the Pentagon's former head of cost evaluation, have said Lockheed's cost target is unrealistic. But others, including the commander of the Air Force's Life Cycle Management Center, do not rule out the possibility. Lockheed's announcement calls the award an “annualized” contract. The company had proposed converting the sustainment program into a five-year, fixed-price contract, but it appears the government rejected the proposal. Lockheed has delivered 490 F-35s since 2009, including 134 in 2019, with the fleet surpassing more than 240,000 cumulative flight hours. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/lockheed-awarded-19b-one-year-f-35-sustainment

• 

  23 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

  Fixing relationships: How US Army Futures Command is working with small biz, academia

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — U.S. Army Futures Command is laying the groundwork to strengthen collaboration with academia and small businesses to solve some of the service's most major problems. The Army has struggled with relationships outside of the established defense industry, particularly with small businesses and Silicon Valley. Small businesses have expressed concerns about working with the government, mostly in regard to the time it takes to secure a contract award as well as the complex and cumbersome government-contracting process. The Government Accountability Office issued a report last week that found Army Futures Command could improve how it works with small businesses. The report was released on the eve of AFC's declaration of full operational capability, which is officially set for July 31. “The funny thing is if I talk to defense primes, they are convinced all we are working with is small business, and I talk to small business all they are convinced ... we are working with the defense primes,” Gen. Mike Murray, AFC commander, said during a July 18 press briefing at the Pentagon. “It's going to take a combination of both for us to accomplish our mission, and in many ways a combination of both working together” to achieve the command's goals in modernizing the Army, he said. But Murray agreed there is more to be done. To its credit, the command was built from scratch and was a “blank canvas” just a year ago, Murray said. The command went from 24 pioneers on the ground at its headquarters in Austin, Texas, to 24,000 soldiers and civilians in 25 states and in 15 countries, over the course of the past year. Since landing in Austin, the AFC has established “focused relationships” with industry and academia, he added. Engaging small businesses One critical step toward engagement with small businesses was the creation of the Army Applications Laboratory in Austin's Capital Factory — an innovation hub for entrepreneurs in the heart of the city's downtown. The venue, with more than 100 Army personnel, is to identify novel solutions to benefit the Army's modernization priorities. For example, the lab is kicking off a major effort this week to discover out-of-the-box solutions for an autoloader for its Extended Range Cannon Artillery system in development under its top priority — Long Range Precision Fires. Additionally, a capability the Army was eyeing a year ago — discovered at the Capital Factory — will be tested at the flight school at Fort Rucker, Alabama, as the service refines its new lot of virtual reality trainers being tested in a pilot program. The Senseye technology is software that can track a pilot's irises during flight simulation training to determine when a person has neurologically learned a task. The Air Force has already incorporated this technology into its simulators. The commander of the Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker said in April at the Army Aviation Association of America symposium that the technology is promising. If all goes well, the commander added, the tech could be used as part of the Army's Synthetic Training Environment. The Army has a cross-functional team, or CFT, within Futures Command focused on such an environment. The GAO recommended the AFC use its cross-functional teams to enhance small business engagement. The Army Applications Lab was also recently at Fort Hood, Texas, working with soldiers on the ground to identify problems that could be solved by small businesses. The lab also completed a trip overseas, Murray noted, but he would not discuss specifics on the location. “I'm not going to say particularly where. There was some specific re-coding of some mission command systems, which significantly helped,” he said. The GAO also recommended the command focus on better engaging small businesses for research and development programs. The command has established four related initiatives, according to the report: It set up the Army Research Laboratory Open Campus 2.0, which transitions scientific research from universities to Army technology development efforts. The command set up the Army Capability Accelerator to help small businesses mature concepts into prototypes and validate early-stage technology. This is managed within the Army Applications Lab. The Army Strategic Capital restructures a prior effort that takes venture capital to offset Army development costs by investing in existing Army Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. Lastly, Halo is an effort to accelerate the “adaptation and transition of commercial and startup-derived products to Army applications and programs,” according to the GAO report. The Army Applications Lab will also manage the effort. Murray is in the process of hiring a lead for a small-business office within AFC. While the Army already has a servicewide small-business office, the GAO recommended AFC interface and use that office to improve relations with small businesses. The office will “make sure that we are at least knowledgeable focusing on capitalizing on anything that small businesses have to offer,” Murray said. AFC is also in the preliminary stage of arranging an event in Austin to establish relationships between small businesses and defense primes, Murray said. “One thing I worry about with small business is the ability to scale,” he said, “so there are a lot of ways they can scale, and one of the ways is working with a defense prime.” While defense primes have relationships with small business, Murray noted, the effort would foster new ones that might not exist. Academic pursuits AFC has also established the University Technology Development Division, which serves as the primary link between the command and its academic partners, Murray said. “That is taking root in several key places,” he explained, including Vanderbilt University, which is partnering with the 101st Airborne Division; Carnegie Mellon University, the home of the Army's Artificial Intelligence Task Force; and the University of Texas as well as Texas A&M, where the command is beginning work on several key programs. In addition to providing the building for AFC's headquarters and offering up roughly 10,000 square feet of office space and labs at its Cockrell School of Engineering, the University of Texas is building a robotics institute for the Army by converting an old building into a lab “at fairly significant cost,” Murray said. Murray has tasked engineers at the University of Texas to study the utility of robotics taking over the dirty and dangerous work while keeping soldiers out of harm's way, even bringing a leading engineering professor from the school on a recent trip to Yakima Air Force Base in Washington state to witness a robotic breach experiment that was part of the service's Joint Warfighting Assessment. The lab will also work on battery technologies, Murray added. The inventor of the lithium battery works at the University of Texas. Texas A&M is focused on hypersonics and directed-energy research, according to Murray. The university will eventually build a soldier-development facility at its RELLIS campus“where we will be able to marry up soldiers with graduate students and faculty to go into some agile development capability in solving problems for soldiers,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/07/22/can-futures-command-change-the-armys-relationship-with-academia-and-small-business/

• 

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

  The US needs to rethink its overseas supply chain

  By: Thomas Ayres As Americans respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have become acutely aware of the outsized impact of our dependence on China in the supply chain. Pharmaceutical companies learned key chemicals and minerals are exclusively made or mined in China. For instance, reports show China produces 97 percent of the antibiotics, 95 percent of ibuprofen and 91 percent of hydrocortisone consumed in the U.S. market. Hospitals also learned that while China produces 50 percent of the world's face masks, they are of dubious reliability. There is cause for concern with the quantity or quality of ventilators. In sum, we learned as citizens what we in the Department of Defense have known for some time: Our national security supply chain must be free from dependence on China. The DoD's concern for its supply chain is not new. Congress spurred activity over a decade ago by questioning the DoD's supply chain risk management, or SCRM, policies. The National Defense Strategy‘s recognition of a new era of strategic, great power competition further sharpened the DoD's focus, propelling recent efforts to enhance regulations and procedures in addressing supply chain threats. We are transitioning from analog to digital, with the goal of planes, ships, tanks and satellites all seamlessly sharing data — a lethal version of the ride-sharing app on your smartphone. Yet, even as the DoD builds this future, the threat of supply chain disruption and concerns about component quality within the electronic backbone are real. Counterfeit or planted microelectronic parts can be vectors for cybersecurity intrusions. Recently, for instance, the DoD voiced concerns that Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei's 5G solution provided back doors, purposefully or negligently, for data corruption, data extraction, system failure or worse. Similarly, SCRM policies have increasingly addressed the concern of intellectual property theft enabled by subcomponents designed to allow information to flow back to larger architectures. The COVID-19 pandemic is giving new meaning to that threat, and the risk of disruption to both raw and manufactured materials from abroad has become apparent. Our SCRM focus must broaden in response to COVID-19 to better address national production capacity and sustainability. Being able to assure access to the minerals, chemicals, subcomponents and components required to build weapon systems is essential. China supplies 80 percent of the rare earth minerals imported to the U.S., many of which are essential to electronic parts. Since 1933, the Buy American Act has required federal agencies, including the DoD, to purchase items manufactured in the U.S. Additionally, these items must be made from supplies mined or made in the U.S. The act is implemented by regulations requiring analysis of the components — where they are mined or made, and where they are assembled. Companies that falsify “Made in America” designations can be debarred from the federal marketplace. In July 2019, months before the pandemic emerged, President Donald Trump issued an executive order seeking to increase the minimum domestic manufacture thresholds above the current 50 percent floors. The pandemic now shows even more needs to be done. We must increase to President Trump's mandated percentages, and we must also analyze where each of the subcomponents are manufactured. This doesn't mean we need to back away from allied contributions or alliance-based weapon systems like the F-35 fighter jet, which benefits from the industrial cooperation of nine partner nations. But in light of COVID-19, it does mean that when we make risk-based and measured decisions to produce an alliance system, we program in several months' worth of component backlogs to allow continued production during future quarantines. The majority of our weapon systems are made in the U.S. by American companies with greater than 50 percent of component production and assembly done domestically. Yet, what is less clear are the composition of the subcomponents in the components themselves. Not recognizing the risks of the subcomponents equally jeopardizes the new reality of disruptions to our supply chain and risks of data extraction, degradation and spying, about which we have increasingly been concerned. Recently, I sought to buy a grapefruit spoon on the internet and found it exceedingly difficult to learn where the offered spoons were made. The harder it was to find, the more I suspected it was made in China. Perhaps Congress should pass a law making it easier to learn the source of manufacturing. Ensuring my access to an American-made grapefruit spoon is not nearly as vital as assuring our access to critical weapon systems, rare earth materials, and pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. A vital step is knowing the source countries of components and subcomponents. We must have deeper knowledge of the full supply chains of subcomponents, and how and where they are produced. Trust can only come once we know all that is required to understand our supply chains and we seek even greater focus in our new normal. Our security depends on it. Thomas Ayres is general counsel for the U.S. Air Force. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/22/the-us-needs-to-rethink-its-overseas-supply-chain/