Retour aux nouvelles

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

Pentagon R&D boss: The challenge of our time

By: Mike Griffin

Nov. 9 marked the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event followed within a couple of years by the reunification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the freeing of the Eastern European vassal states. Francis Fukuyama thought we had reached “the end of history,” that global great power conflict was at its end and that the ascendancy of the Western liberal concept was the permanent future. “We won the Cold War” — it says so in all the history books.

Winning is great, except for the part where the losers retreat, rethink, retrain and try again; while the winner thinks the race is won once and for all — which is why the United States now finds itself running from behind in certain aspects of today's great power rivalry. How did we get here, and what should we do about it?

It turned out that Fukuyama was optimistic; Russia and China never accepted Western ideals as future standards. Their adherence to and promulgation of authoritarian values and behaviors was, at most, slowed by the ascendancy of the Western alliance after World War II. Russia's resurgence and China's rise offer the sobering reminder that individual freedom, property rights, free trade in open markets, transparency and accountability in government, the rule of law, and the sovereignty of nations are not universally accepted as foundational principles for human society. They are privileges to be purchased by every generation, at a high price in blood and treasure.

Where possible, the United States has paid with treasure rather than with blood. This principle guided our Cold War policies. Knowing that we could not outnumber our adversaries, we invested to prevail technologically and sustained that discipline through eight presidential administrations. President Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doubling down on the policies of the seven presidents who preceded him. Premier Mikhail Gorbachev lost because the Soviet Union could not keep up.

What did we buy with those investments? First was the nuclear triad: our land-based intercontinental missiles, fleet ballistic missile submarines and strategic bombers. That force left no option for an adversary to surprise the U.S. and its allies with a decapitating first strike because the certainty of complete annihilation following such a strike was always there.

Equally critical was the ability to prevail against a larger force in a conventional fight. The U.S. seized the advantage with precision, with a precise conventional strike, enabled by pattern-matching seekers. With a global positioning system to guide force projection to the right place, stealth technology to hide our aircraft from enemy radar, encrypted high-rate communications to enable superior command and control, electronic warfare to deny that advantage to our enemies, unmanned aerial vehicles for both reconnaissance and force projection, and the uncontested dominance of the space domain to tie it all together, we prevailed.

These capabilities were transformational when first deployed, beyond the reach of any other society on Earth. But many are now available commercially, and others, such as electronic warfare and stealth, are now widely understood. Some potentially transformative technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, 5G, and microelectronics are driven not by defense but by commercial interests, and not solely by our domestic industrial base. In certain areas with no present commercial applications, such as hypersonic flight, we are simply behind. And in space — once the uncontested linchpin of the U.S. war-fighting advantage — we are challenged by Russian and Chinese determination, and capability, to deny that advantage. In brief, the United States no longer possesses the unquestioned technical superiority to dominate a future fight.

At this juncture, we have not undertaken concerted defense modernization in more than a generation, and therefore have made marginal improvements to existing capabilities. These will not affect the outcome of a conflict for which our adversaries, knowing how we fight, have been preparing for a generation.

We know what we need to do. The National Defense Strategy outlines the investments we must pursue: a revitalized nuclear triad, microelectronics, cybersecurity, biotechnology, 5G, space, hypersonics, artificial intelligence, directed energy, autonomous systems, networked communications, missile defense and quantum science, among others. Superiority in these technologies, woven into a war-fighting architecture that challenges our adversaries rather than reacting to them, is the key to deterring or winning future conflicts.

The taxpayers have been generous with the defense budget, but it is insufficient to purchase more legacy systems while also creating the future force. So we must decide: What near-term risks are we willing to take, and what current systems are we willing to let go, so that we can invest in capabilities that will impose costs on our adversaries and deter them from starting a fight because they know they cannot win? This is the critical national security challenge of our time.

https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/pentagon-rd-boss-the-challenge-of-our-time

Sur le même sujet

  • SAIC wins contract foe heavyweight and lightweight torpedo testing services for U.S Navy

    5 juin 2020 | International, Naval

    SAIC wins contract foe heavyweight and lightweight torpedo testing services for U.S Navy

    Reston, Va. - (BUSINESS WIRE) - June 2, 2020 - The U.S. Navy awarded Science Applications International Corp. (NYSE: SAIC) a prime contract worth approximately $60 million to continue to provide mission engineering support by testing heavyweight and lightweight torpedoes for the Naval Sea Systems Command. This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200602005228/en/ In support of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division Newport, SAIC will handle testing and data collection for MK 48 Heavyweight Torpedoes, and MK 54 and MK 46 Lightweight torpedoes. “For more than 13 years, SAIC has supported the testing of approximately 150 torpedoes as part of the engineering, technical, and management services we provide to the NUWC's Propulsion Test Facility in Newport, Rhode Island,” said Jim Scanlon, executive vice president and general manager of the Defense Systems Group. “We look forward to continuing to support NUWC with testing of torpedoes and torpedo components over the next five years.” As part of the single-award contract, SAIC will prepare the test facility and test torpedoes, interface the test torpedo, execute the test, and collect and process test data. Additionally, SAIC will support preparing torpedoes for testing at off-site test ranges and locations. SAIC will also provide maintenance, upgrades, and operational support for test torpedo assembly and turnaround, system and subsystem testing, data reduction, test equipment operation, and data and configuration management. The cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price contract has a one-year base period of performance with four option years. About SAIC SAIC® is a premier Fortune 500® technology integrator driving our nation's digital transformation. Our robust portfolio of offerings across the defense, space, civilian, and intelligence markets includes secure high-end solutions in engineering, IT modernization, and mission solutions. Using our expertise and understanding of existing and emerging technologies, we integrate the best components from our own portfolio and our partner ecosystem to deliver innovative, effective, and efficient solutions that are critical to achieving our customers' missions. We are 25,500 strong; driven by mission, united by purpose, and inspired by opportunities. Headquartered in Reston, Virginia, SAIC has pro forma annual revenues of approximately $7.1 billion.​​​​ For more information, visit saic.com. For ongoing news, please visit our newsroom. Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this release contain or are based on “forward-looking” information within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “guidance,” and similar words or phrases. Forward-looking statements in this release may include, among others, estimates of future revenues, operating income, earnings, earnings per share, charges, total contract value, backlog, outstanding shares and cash flows, as well as statements about future dividends, share repurchases and other capital deployment plans. Such statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risk, uncertainties and assumptions, and actual results may differ materially from the guidance and other forward-looking statements made in this release as a result of various factors. Risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause or contribute to these material differences include those discussed in the “Risk Factors,” “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Legal Proceedings” sections of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as updated in any subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other filings with the SEC, which may be viewed or obtained through the Investor Relations section of our website at saic.com or on the SEC's website at sec.gov. Due to such risks, uncertainties and assumptions you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. SAIC expressly disclaims any duty to update any forward-looking statement provided in this release to reflect subsequent events, actual results or changes in SAIC's expectations. SAIC also disclaims any duty to comment upon or correct information that may be contained in reports published by investment analysts or others. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200602005228/en/ Lauren Presti 703-676-8982 lauren.a.presti@saic.com Source: Science Applications International Corp.

  • Rheinmetall, BAE consummate armored-vehicles joint venture

    2 juillet 2019 | International, Terrestre

    Rheinmetall, BAE consummate armored-vehicles joint venture

    By: Andrew Chuter and Sebastian Sprenger LONDON and COLOGNE, Germany – Germany's Rheinmetall and Britain's BAE Systems on Monday launched their U.K.-based military vehicles joint venture, after British authorities approved the deal in mid-June, the companies announced. The new outfit is named RBSL, short for Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land, and it's based in Telford, West Midlands. Peter Hardisty, formerly of Rheinmetall UK, is the company's managing director. The joint venture sets out to “play a major role” in manufacturing the Boxer multirole fighting vehicle for the British Mechanised Infantry Vehicle program, according to a Rheinmetall statement. Official also have an eye on “other strategic combat vehicle programs” in addition to maintenance contracts for the British Army's bridging- and armored-vehicle fleets, according to the company. “This announcement is a clear vote of confidence in the UK's defence industry as a world-leader in designing, supplying and supporting military vehicles,” Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt was quoted as saying in the statement. “This exciting venture clearly demonstrates how Defence sits at the heart of the prosperity agenda. Its benefits will be felt in the West Midlands and across the UK defence supply chain, creating jobs, boosting exports and guaranteeing our technical skills base into the future.” Some might think it was anything but. That's because the news also means Britain has lost its only big-name, armored-vehicle company in a joint venture where BAE is the junior partner. As a result, the country no longer has a domestically controlled mainstream vehicle supplier — although some would argue BAE forfeited that role a while ago. The British company retains significant armored-vehicle design and build activities in the United States and Sweden. General Dynamics UK, Lockheed Martin UK and Rheinmetall now have significant investments in Britain's armored-vehicle sector, with British involvement primarily led by specialist designers and builders like Supacat and Jankel and a still-vibrant sector supply chain. It's a far cry from 2004 when BAE acquired key domestic manufacturer Alvis, trumping an acquisition bid from General Dynamics with a last-minute offer of £355 million (U.S. $451 million) that was largely seen as a strategic move. At the time, most of the British Army's armored vehicle fleet was designed and supplied by Alvis. But that's dramatically changed. General Dynamics has recently started supplying its Ajax family of tracked reconnaissance vehicles to the Army in what is the biggest deal in the sector in three decades. Final assembly and testing takes place at company facilities in South Wales. Lockheed Martin is leading the program to update the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle as well as supply turrets for the Ajax program from a factory in southern England. Rheinmetall is a partner in the Artec consortium selected without competition to supply Britain with the eight-wheel drive Boxer vehicle. The vehicle was nominated as the preferred option last year but a final production deal between RBSL and the Ministry of Defence has yet to be announced. Rheinmetall and BAE have also been vying to supply a major upgrade of the Challenger 2 main battle tank for the British Army. Mordaunt recently labeled the Challenger as “obsolete” due to the ministry's failure to keep pace with technological advances in the sector. In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute think tank last month, she said Britain had fallen behind it's allies and rivals due to underinvestment in the armored vehicle sector. A decision on the Challenger update program is expected shortly. However, recent signals from the MoD suggest the Army may have got its wish to fall into line with other NATO members and go for the German company's solution of a new turret and 120mm smoothbore gun to replace the rifled weapon currently fitted to the Challenger 2. BAE's weapons and ammunition activities in the U.K. are excluded from the deal, as is the CTAI joint venture with Nexter to build a new 40mm cannon. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/07/01/rheinmetall-bae-consummate-armored-vehicles-joint-venture/

  • Bell, Leonardo to partner on tiltrotor helicopters

    29 février 2024 | International, Terrestre

    Bell, Leonardo to partner on tiltrotor helicopters

    The agreement follows a long partnership between the firms on the BA609 tiltrotor program, which ended in 2011.

Toutes les nouvelles