Pentagon AI center shifts focus to joint war-fighting operations

Sur le même sujet

• 

  5 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Filière aéronautique et défense : reprise d’activité et perspectives de relance

  Défense Filière aéronautique et défense : reprise d'activité et perspectives de relance Dans la filière aéronautique et défense, «la reprise de l'activité est assez rapide après un arrêt quasi complet», avait observé il y a une dizaine de jours Eric Trappier, président du GIFAS et PDG de Dassault Aviation, au moment de son audition à l'Assemblée nationale. Un constat partagé par le président du CIDEF (GIFAS, GICAT, GICAN), Stéphane Mayer : «au début de la crise, nous avions jusqu'à 60% des entreprises qui étaient à l'arrêt ou très perturbées. Aujourd'hui, nous observons une généralisation progressive des reprises mais avec un niveau très variable entre 30 et 60%, au maximum 70%, des effectifs au travail», dont 20 à 30% sur site. L'étape du 11 mai marquera la poursuite de l'amélioration voire «une accélération de ces ratios», a souligné M. Mayer. La Tribune rappelle que le GIFAS s'est mis en ordre de combat depuis le début de la crise : Eric Trappier a décidé de réunir autour de lui sur une base hebdomadaire les principaux dirigeants de la filière : Guillaume Faury (Airbus), Philippe Petitcolin (Safran), Patrice Caine (Thales), ainsi que le président du Groupe des Équipements Aéronautiques et de Défense Patrick Daher (Daher), le président du Comité Aéro-PME, Christophe Cador, PDG de Satys, et le Délégué général du GIFAS, Pierre Bourlot. Un plan de relance est en préparation dans la défense. Dans l'aéronautique civile, Eric Trappier rappelle que renouveler les avions «permettrait de redynamiser le secteur aéronautique et de rendre les compagnies aéronautiques encore plus vertueuses en ayant des avions plus verts». M. Trappier a rappelé que les États-Unis ont déterminé «deux priorités stratégiques de relance : l'aéronautique et l'industrie de défense», soit un plan de 50 milliards de dollars. «Est-ce que l'Europe va en mettre un en place ? Nous y travaillons, le commissaire Breton y réfléchit sérieusement», a-t-il expliqué. La Tribune du 5 mai

• 

  30 octobre 2020 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

  US Air Force components partner on low code, no code pilot programs

  Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The 16th Air Force and an Air Force cyber software development unit are partnering together on a “low-code, no-code” pilot program that will allow airmen with minimal training to develop software applications they need. Right now, the DoD is working on developing personnel into expert level coders, but that's not an easily scalable solution, according to Col. William Waynick, director of the Air Force's CyberWorx program, an Air Force office that works with industry and academia to deliver new tools to meet user needs. Hence, the pilot program, called the “Other Airmen,” which aims to get airmen just the basic skills they need to get a job done. “So we're looking at technology out there that will allow anybody with minimal training to develop applications that they need,” Waynick said at C4ISRNET's CyberCon virtual event. “Now, they probably want to go into the complex applications like they would have software houses. But we do believe that a majority of applications out there that the users need can actually be taken care of by low-code, no-code.” Waynick said the team currently has 20 people from across the Air Force and Army working with five vendors on the project. The teams are currently working on applications for equipment tracking, and readiness and training trackers. Another team is working on a contracting pilot to make it easier for industry to submit pitches to acquisition professionals. “They're interested in making an application for pitch decks from industry,” Waynick said. “So industry can, instead of just sending a white paper to an acquisition office, they can actually send the entire pitch. And so that way, they have video, and they can do maybe some Q and A's maybe live, but they're making an application to to provide a capability for industry to provide pitches as well.” The airmen and soldiers working on the project participate on the side of their normal jobs, including piloting, logistics or finance. In March, Waynick said that the team will brief Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh, commander of the 16th Air Force, on the results of the pilot. CyberWorx is centered on delivering tool the user can actually us, not focusing on the technology for technology's sake, Waynick said. Airmen have an abundance of tools to choose from, he said, but the tools don't always do what the airmen need them to do. “The issue that I've seen, and I'm seeing still, is that there are too many tools. And I would just say, you know, each has a specific function,” Waynick said. “But not everything that the user needs so they have to go to another tool. And a lot of the times these tools aren't exactly what the user needs.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/cybercon/2020/10/29/us-air-force-components-partner-on-low-code-no-code-pilot-programs/

• 

  29 octobre 2019 | International, Naval

  After a leadership shakeup at General Dynamics, a murky future for submarine building

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — Submarine building, the pride of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding efforts over the past decade, is facing a mountain of uncertainty, a point underscored by the replacement of senior members of General Dynamics leadership, compounding delays with construction of the Virginia-class submarine and nagging questions about the quality of the work after a high-profile welding issue threatened to trip up the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub program at the starting line. Adding to the uncertainty for General Dynamics, which operates the Electric Boat shipyard in Connecticut, are indications that profits from constructing Virginia-class subs may be slipping. And challenges in training new workers in the complex world of building subs as well as concerns that the Columbia program might negatively affect General Dynamics' bottom line are impacting General Dynamics' partner yard Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia, as well as the U.S. Navy. Furthermore, a contract for the significantly larger Block V Virginia-class submarine, expected to be one of the largest in the Navy's history, has been repeatedly delayed amid disputes over labor rates, sources told Defense News. That contract is more than a year past due, according to Navy budget documents. In September, General Dynamics pushed out Electric Boat President Jeffrey Geiger. Industry and Navy sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Geiger's replacement was the culmination of mounting frustration on the part of the Navy. That came to a head when quality control issues surfaced with missile tubes in production destined for the Virginia Payload Module, Columbia-class subs and the United Kingdom's replacement ballistic missile sub. Geiger's ouster came on the heals of General Dynamics replacing long-time executive John Casey as head of the Marine Systems division when he retired earlier this year. The shakeup, delays and lingering issues put the Navy and the submarine-building enterprise at a crossroads. It's clear that the Navy's efforts to ramp up production of its Virginia-class attack boats ahead of Columbia have encountered myriad issues and delays. But while delays may be acceptable for the Virginia program, the interconnected nature of submarine building means those delays could eek into a program that the Navy has for years insisted cannot be delayed any further: the replacement of its aging Ohio-class ballistic missile subs, part of the nuclear deterrent triad. The Navy has said Columbia must be ready for its first patrol in 2031 to ensure the nation doesn't fall below a dangerous threshold where retiring Ohio-class submarines leaving the country without an adequate number of boats to execute its deterrent strategy. But to head that off, the Navy may have reduce its expectations of the industrial base's capacity to build submarines, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank and a retired submarine officer. “The Navy is going to have to reduce its appetite for submarine capacity while it gets the construction process in a better position,” he said. “All of the things we have seen in the past year in the submarine-building enterprise are the results of the ramped-up production levels and the challenges that EB [Electric Boat] faces in hiring more workers up in Connecticut. “They've been growing capacity, investing in infrastructure; they're trying to hire a bunch of workers and design engineers. [But] there just isn't a large workforce of those kinds of people up there as opposed to in Hampton Roads or the Gulf Coast. So there are a lot of challenges in ramping up production to [increase] Virginia-class production and, in addition, starting Columbia and beginning the Virginia Payload Module-equipped Virginias, which is a 30 percent larger submarine.” A bridge to Columbia In March, Defense News reported that all the Virginia-class submarines under construction were between four and seven months behind schedule. Naval Sea Systems Command pointed to the cumulative effect of ramping up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year. In a statement, the service's top acquisition official said the Navy was continuing to confront material, labor and shipyard infrastructure issues. Labor issues in particular hit the Newport News yard, which told investors in a recent earnings call that profits had slipped by about 23 percent on the Virginia sub building because of delays associated with labor issues. In the face of the mounting issues, the Navy should be willing to make difficult choices to get back on an even footing, Clark said. “Are we going to make some tough choices and dial back submarine construction deliberately to make sure we can get Columbia started correctly?” he asked. “And that means maybe we slow down Virginia, maybe we go to one per year for at least a couple of years to catch up.” Clark said the Navy should continue to fund two submarines per year but should expect that they will take longer to build while General Dynamics and Newport News stabilize their labor and parts issues. Paring back submarine production is a tough pill to swallow for the Navy, as it's been fighting for years to prevent a shortfall of attack submarines in the coming decade. The Navy expects its inventory of attack boats to drop from 52 to 42 by the late 2020s as Cold War-era Los Angeles-class attack subs retire. Furthermore, there's the question of whether scaling back production might invite a funding cut, which could make matters worse. The supplier and labor issues, after all, primarily stem from the 1990s when the Navy all but stopped buying submarines, which resulted in a contraction of the number of businesses that built submarine parts and a loss in skilled laborers who knew how to build them. Less funding would likely have a detrimental effect on sub-building efforts, said Bill Greenwalt, a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer. “Under our current budget and appropriations process, slowing down — which likely implies cutting program funding — would exacerbate industrial base problems as it already has in the past due to lack of program demand,” Greenwalt said. “Congress and the Navy need to be prepared for industrial base surprises and seriously face the past problem of the underfunding of naval shipbuilding.” “A flexible schedule and more realistic and flexible funding mechanisms will be needed to meet whatever industrial base challenges ... will inevitably arise,” he added. “In the near term we may even need to look at some of our allies' capabilities to meet shortfalls and help us keep on schedule until we rebuild U.S. capacity.” Greenwalt's view tracks with that of General Dynamics, according to a source with knowledge of the company's thinking on the difficulties it has faced. The company considers ramping up production on the Virginia-class sub as essential to building a sufficient labor force and supplier capacity so the resources are available to build Columbia class on schedule, the source said. ‘Two-hump camel' The Navy's top acquisition official, James Geurts, has similarly described the issue. On the possibility of building a third Virginia-class submarine in 2023, Geurts told the House Armed Services Committee's sea power panel in March that it would benefit the Columbia-building effort. “We can get some of the additional workforce trained up, get some more of the supplier base and get some of the supplier builds out of the way before Columbia gets here,” he said. Officials everywhere seem to agree that the labor force is the most critical factor when it comes to getting submarine building on track. In an exit interview with Defense News in August, outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said turnover at shipyards was a challenge but also an exciting chance to build a new generation of skilled labor. “We're asking a lot of the submarine industrial base right now to continue with Virginia, two to three per year including that payload module, and deliver Columbia,” Richardson said. “And the workforce is going through a transformation. “The people who built and delivered the Virginia program, the Los Angeles program and Seawolf — those folks are retiring. We used to have this two-hump camel in terms of the demographics of the shipyard: You had the Cold Warriors and you had the post-9/11 folks. And that Cold War hump is gone. And I think that although it's going through some friction right now, it's really inculcating, indoctrinating and educating a brand-new workforce.” Richardson also sounded a note of warning about work quality, saying that the managers overseeing the work for the submarine-building enterprise must be on top of their jobs. “We've had some welding issues: We've got to be on that,” he said. “[It's] a lot closer oversight as we educate this new team.” Clarification: The story has been updated to better reflect the arguments surrounding the future of submarine building. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/28/after-a-leadership-shakeup-at-general-dynamics-a-murky-future-for-submarine-building/