NATO allies may lift target to spend 2% of output on defence - Stoltenberg

Sur le même sujet

• 

  26 septembre 2018 | International, Naval, C4ISR

  On the new battlefield, the Navy has to get software updates to the fleet within days, acquisition boss says

  By: David B. Larter The Navy has to get software updates and patches to the fleet within days if it's going to win in the future, the Department of the Navy's acquisition boss said Sept. 25 at Modern Day Marine. James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, acquisition and development, said the fleet has been working on the rapid development of software to get needed upgrades to the ships ahead of pier-side availabilities, a pace he said was too slow for the modern battlefield. “We recently did one of our proof-of-principles to say: ‘How do you take ... software, get it system certified, get it cyber certified then get it out over the airwaves, uploaded on to a ship and into the combat system in 24 hours,” Geurts said. “My view is unless we get to the point where I can identify a software requirement, whether it's an [artificial intelligence] algorithm or something, find the solution, get it checked out on the network, give it whatever cyber-proofing it needs and get it into the fight in less than a week, we are not going to be successful in the long run.” The Navy has increasingly found that its current systems are capable of adjusting to new threats through software upgrades rather than buying new systems and installing them, a time-consuming and cripplingly expensive process that has been the norm in years past. Geurts said the Navy had to have a software architecture that was amenable to rapid upgrades so that developers would not need to re-test the underlying architecture each time a patch or fix is uploaded. Furthermore, the service also has to develop cyber security standards that don't just weigh whether or not something can be compromised but begin to think of it more in terms of risks associated. “The answer isn't yes or no, it's ‘Commander here is your risk.' And then weigh the risk of doing that [upgrade] versus a potential cyber impact so that commanders can make reasonable command decisions. Because there is always a risk to not doing something. We often talk about the risk of doing something, we don't often talk about the risk of not doing it.” Geurts told a gaggle with reporters after the talk that he was not talking about uploading whole new programs that sailors might be unfamiliar with but more iterative upgrades. "Don't take that to an extreme to where we will load on something that nobody has ever seen before, but it could be that there is a particular issue or new need, and you can envision us testing and training that shore-side, making sure it's right – we don't want to wait for the ship to come home we could potentially blast that out [to the fleet.]" The Navy is also working more with having digital doppelgangers of its combat system on board its ships so that new technologies can be tested by the crew and commanders before its uploaded into the main combat system, a hedge against reaping unintended consequences by uploading a feature or patch without knowing exactly how it will fit into the ship's systems. "The other thing we are doing a lot with is digital twins, where [the ship] might have the combat system that it's fighting with as well as a digital twin,” Geurts explained. “So you might be able to upload that new feature in the digital twin so you could have both, then it's up to the commander whether it's something you adopt or not.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/digital-show-dailies/modern-day-marine/2018/09/25/on-the-new-battlefield-the-navy-has-to-get-software-updates-to-the-fleet-within-days-acquisition-boss-says

• 

  28 novembre 2018 | International, Naval

  Panel: Navy May Have to Choose Between New Ballistic Missile Subs or 355 Ship Fleet

  By: John Grady The Navy could be forced to make hard choices sooner rather than later when it comes to finding the money to replace its aging ballistic missile submarines or reach its goal of having a fleet of 355 warships, a panel of security and budgetary experts said this week. When asked by USNI News what the future holds for fleet size and ballistic missile submarines now that the Democrats control the House, Frank Rose, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former assistant secretary of state for arms control, he said: “There is not enough money” for both, and “priorities need to be taken.” Rose and Jim Miller, a former undersecretary of Defense for policy, came down firmly on the side of building the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, the replacements for the current Ohio-class, in setting priorities for Navy spending. For the U.S., the ballistic missile submarines “secures the second strike” in event of a nuclear attack. “It really is the backbone of our nuclear force now and for the next 70 to 80 years,” Rose said. The Navy shouldn't be allowed to say, “sorry, we ran out of money” when it comes to paying for the ballistic missile submarine because the shipbuilding account was used for other kinds of warships. “The Navy needs to step up to that bill,” Miller said. That line of thought is not confined to think-tanks. Rep. Adam Smith, (D-Wash.), who is expected to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, has long expressed skepticism over the Navy's shipbuilding plan leading to a fleet of 355 warships. He has several times at recent public events referred to it as “simply a number thrown out there.” A sense of how the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee will line up on fleet size and modernizing the nuclear triad could come Tuesday when the full panel looks at the recommendations of the commission on the National Defense Strategy and that afternoon its sea power subcommittee looks at current and future shipbuilding plans. In his presentation, Miller said a fleet of 355 ships, meaning a growth of about 70 from the current size “are numbers that should be challenged” as should those increasing Army end strength from about 450,000 soldiers to 510,000. If all the services force structure numbers were challenged there would be funds for readiness and modernization, including the nuclear triad. “Will this administration put its money where its strategy [of deterring new-peer competitors — Russia and China] is?” he asked rhetorically. There is some concern that the Trump administration will pull back from long-term, continually rising Pentagon budgets. The Defense Department was planning for a request for Fiscal Year 2020 of $733 billion, but it has now been told by the Office of Management and Budget to work with a $700 billion top line. The question for all the services is: “can they get by with current force structure” if missions are also re-examined to free money for readiness, modernization and investment in the future like cyber resilience and space, especially sensors for missile defense. Michael O'Hanlon, who moderated the session at Brookings in Washington, D.C., added in answer to the USNI News question that for the Navy it means looking at the missions its accepts critically. For example, does the lack of an aircraft carrier strike group presence in the Persian Gulf upset security in the region. Or is it a way to free money for other things. He pointed out that when there was no carrier present there for months Iran did not act more aggressively. “The Middle East was a mess before; the Middle East was a mess after. [The Navy] can be more flexible [and that] could be with a smaller fleet,” he said. Miller said during the presentation and later with USNI there was a tradeoff that needed to be understood between “quantity and quality.” Following the presentation, Miller said the Navy “is in a bind” when it has to choose between large capital surface ships, like carriers, “and places where it has an advantage, like submarines — boomers and attack and unmanned undersea vessels. He added modernizing the amphibious fleet remained a priority to meet the need for rapid response of Marines and special forces. Overhanging all this discussion of where the Pentagon should spend its money is the old bugaboo — sequestration, the automatic across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic spending if deficits are not offset, as required by existing law. Maya MacGuiness, president of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, said unless Congress reaches a spending agreement Pentagon spending would automatically fall back to $576 billion because the Budget Control Act of 2011 remains in place. As it has in the past, Congress has reached an agreement to lift the caps, but is no longer trying to offset those hikes in spending with comparable cuts in other programs. With a trillion dollar deficit and national debt “the highest it has been since World War II,” she said the United States “faces incredible fiscal challenges,” but administrations and Congress aren't making the choices in where to cut, where to spend, how to find revenue to pay for programs, cover entitlements — in and out of the military, and meet the interest payments on the debt. Instead, there has been “a doubling down” on spending and cutting taxes. The reality has become “I won't pay for mine; you won't pay for yours.” MacGuiness said, “We have to stop the notion we can have it all” in federal spending on guns and butter. She did not predict whether the new Congress would make those decisions. While expecting House Democrats to exercise more executive branch oversight, Elaine Kamerck, of Brookings, said didn't see their approach come the New Year as an all-out assault on Pentagon spending. The party's leadership is concerned about keeping its majority having taken seats in more conservative suburban areas after 2020. A more interesting question come January will be “how does the Republican leadership in Congress take the lessons from the elections” that saw “them decimated in the suburbs” and their winning margins cut in rural areas, she said, and apply them to the budget. https://news.usni.org/2018/11/23/panel-navy-may-choose-new-ballistic-missile-subs-355-ship-fleet

• 

  22 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial

  L3, Northrop Selected for Next Generation Jammer Work; Program Stalled After Raytheon Protest

  By: Sam LaGrone The next phase of the Navy's effort to replace its decades-old ALQ-99 jamming systems on its fleet of electronic warfare aircraft is in a holding pattern amid a protest from a company cut from the competition, USNI News has learned. As part of rapid acquisition push for the new jamming technology, the Navy is splitting up the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) ALQ-99 replacement work into three increments based on the frequencies the system must block – high-band, mid-band and low-band – to help shield U.S. aircraft from anti-air radar systems. In 2013, Raytheon won a $276 million award for the first portion of the NGJ project – the ALQ-249 mid-band jamming part of the new system – and was awarded an additional $1.2 billion for the work in 2016. In late 2017, Naval Air Systems Command announced a “demonstration of existing technology” contract to shape how it would pursue the low-band increment. The work would create “[a] demonstration that will lead to an assessment of the maturity level of the technologies that might be applied to a low band jammer pod,” a NAVAIR spokesperson told USNI News in a statement on Tuesday. “This will help inform the appropriate acquisition strategy of the program.” Last month, L3 and a team of Northrop Grumman and Harris were selected to move forward from a field of four competitors that also included Raytheon and a Lockheed Martin and Cobham team, USNI News has learned. Soon afterwards, Raytheon filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing it should have been selected to move forward with the low-band jammer effort. Both L3 and the Northrop Grumman/Harris team confirmed that their low-band tech was selected for potential further study by NAVIAR but referred additional questions to the Navy due to the ongoing protest from Raytheon. “We have a mature and exceedingly capable offering for Next-Generation Jammer Low Band,” a Northrop spokesman told USNI News in a statement. “Northrop Grumman stands ready to demonstrate that technology.” USNI News understands a Lockheed Martin/Cobham team was not selected for further study. A Lockheed spokesperson referred questions to the Navy citing the protest. In a short statement, Raytheon implied the Navy did not fully take into account the benefits of the company's existing investment into the ALQ-249 mid-band jamming technology. “We believe there were errors in the government's evaluation,” Dana Carroll, a Raytheon spokeswoman, told USNI News in a statement. “Our low-risk, open architecture pod effectively and affordably counters modern threats while maximizing reuse of proven technology and taxpayer investment.” The GAO has until October to reach a decision on Raytheon protest. The Next Generation Jammer program has been a weak point the Navy's push to revitalize its aerial electronic warfare portfolio after the service shrugged off developing an improved capability for years in favor of other priorities. The program was placed on the backburner for years while the U.S. was mostly engaged in conflicts with largely uncontested airspace. Full article: https://news.usni.org/2018/08/21/l3-northrop-selected-next-generation-jammer-work-program-stalled-raytheon-protest