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

SASC chairman: We must build the national security innovation base our defense strategy requires

By: Sen. Jim Inhofe

Since World War II, the American people have believed our military has had the best of everything, but the technological superiority that kept us 20 years ahead of our competitors has rapidly diminished. In some cases, we're already behind. By 2030, unless we pursue “urgent change at significant scale,” as former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis put it, it's likely the U.S. will face an enemy with superior weapons, superior equipment and superior capabilities.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our strategic competition with China. China used to just steal our technology. Now, through heavy investment, they are improving it. The result? China is outpacing the U.S. in key areas like hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies — not to mention conventional capabilities.

China isn't the only one. Technological development is accelerating across the globe, expanding to more actors and changing the very nature of war.

We can't afford to let our advantage erode further. It is up to the Department of Defense and Congress to make sure that the defense-industrial base becomes, as the National Defense Strategy demands, an “unmatched 21st century National Security Innovation Base.” If we want to “sustain security and solvency,” we need to consider wholesale change to industry culture and its interface with the Department of Defense, shed outdated management processes, and reimagine a resilient supply chain that mitigates 21st century risks.

This essay is part of the Defense News 2020 Outlook project. Click here for more.

This begins with software, which is foundational to military capability. The DoD and its traditional hardware-dominant industry partners have been behind on software in almost every way — talent, tools, development and delivery processes. Software innovation has failed in countless DoD programs, including the Ford-class carrier, the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System and the GPS next-generation operational control system. Instead of taking the Pentagon for granted as an endless source of cash flow, partners must refocus their attention on delivering secure capability that actually works.

Next, the Department of Defense needs to continue to expand capacity — prioritizing speed of delivery and adapting its systems to maximize value and output. For too long we have been slow to expand our stockpiles of fifth-generation weapons required to fight peer adversaries. The second production line for JASSM-ER cruise missiles is a good start toward building the capacity needed to retain advantages that will make any enemy think twice before attacking. We must do the same for other fifth-generation weapons, including air-to-air missiles.

Shipbuilding, including aircraft carriers, surface ships, submarines and our logistics fleet, is another area where our capacity is severely limited. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, which recently surpassed ours in size, is on track to reach 400 ships in 2025 and is nearly self-sufficient for all components.

Size of the fleet isn't a sole consideration. We've focused on ensuring the capability of our fleet remains unmatched and bolstering suppliers of critical components, but we must also improve the construction performance of lead ships in new classes to maintain and build upon our capability advantage. The last thing we want is a fair fight. Innovation is best done at the subsystem level through a rigorous engineering-based process centered on building knowledge through full-scale prototypes, which can then inform ship design. We are eager to work with the Navy to identify and fund more of these prototypes, which will serve as the building blocks of the future fleet.

We also must accelerate innovation. Recent defense authorization legislation encourages the DoD to streamline acquisition, take a business-minded approach to contracting, and tap into nontraditional suppliers and public-private partnerships. This must continue. Dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one. The DoD has looked to Silicon Valley, but we are competing with Chinese influence there as well, and the Pentagon has often proven an impossible customer due to its antiquated bureaucracy.

Any technological improvements will be meaningless if vulnerable to being infiltrated or stolen. Recent legislation continues support for the DoD as it assesses and mitigates risks to its supply chains posed by adversaries. Both the government and contractors need to cooperate on and use modern verification tools to identify trusted suppliers and manufacturers, as well as fix vulnerabilities. To make these tools useful, the DoD must first establish a working digital model of its suppliers.

Lastly, while we must continue to invest in the domestic, organic industrial base, it's important to remember that we can't take on China and Russia alone — which is why the National Defense Strategy emphasizes our network of allies and partners. We must remove unnecessary barriers to industrial cooperation that degrade our collective competitive edge.

We do not have to make a false choice between investing domestically and in our allies — we can do both. Under our National Technology and Industrial Base partnership with Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, we can develop a more diverse, resilient industrial base, secure our supply chains, and become a “five eyes for defense procurement.” It's in our best interest to ensure our allies can leverage our technological advantages and we can leverage theirs.

Without a strong national security innovation base, the Pentagon cannot implement the National Defense Strategy. Congress' job is to put the appropriate, tailored policy in place and provide sufficient, predictable resources to help the industrial base meet these challenges. Together, we can harness the power of American innovation to ensure that we are able to win the wars of the future.

https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/sasc-chairman-we-must-build-the-national-security-innovation-base-our-defense-strategy-requires

Sur le même sujet

  • COVID closed Mexican factories that supply US defense industry. The Pentagon wants them opened.

    22 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    COVID closed Mexican factories that supply US defense industry. The Pentagon wants them opened.

    By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― Factory closures in Mexico due to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting U.S. defense firms, and the Pentagon is urging America's neighbor to the south to reopen vital suppliers. Because Mexico has not designated its aerospace and defense sector as essential, it's disrupting the supply chain for the American defense industrial base, particularly aircraft manufacturers. Though little known, Mexico's defense exports to the U.S. and beyond grew mightily over the last 15 years as defense firms large and small opened production facilities there. Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord said she discussed the problem with U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau. She was planning a letter to Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard, she said, to ask that he, “help reopen international suppliers there. “These companies are especially important for our U.S. airframe production.” The pandemic has raised broader questions about America's dependence on global supply chains, particularly its reliance on China for key medicines and supplies. A Pentagon task force set up to monitor COVID-19′s impact on military suppliers found “several pockets of closure” linked to “international dependencies,” Lord said. “Mexico right now is somewhat problematical for us but we're working through our embassy, and then there are pockets in India as well,” Lord said. More broadly, only small fractions of the Pentagon's suppliers in the U.S. have closed due to the new coronavirus and distancing measures imposed to fights its spread, but the aviation, shipbuilding and small space launch subsectors have been hardest hit by disruptions from the virus, Lord said. The Pentagon is using $250 million from last month's emergency stimulus funding to bolster defense firms, and it will funnel another $750 million to medical resources. The Defense Department is also working with the White House budget office to request “billions and billions” of dollars in future fiscal packages to cover schedule delays, accelerated progress payments and other costs, Lord said. A Pentagon spokesman declined to provide details about the products and companies impacted by the Mexican factory closures, and said Lord's letter to Ebrard was not being shared publicly because it contained sensitive information. A 2013 United States International Trade Commission report noted that General Electric, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin and Eurocopter were among more than a dozen U.S. firms of various sizes that opened Mexican subsidiaries ― all part of a Mexican aerospace export boom. Mexico's growth was fueled by its lower manufacturing costs, duty-free access to markets through the North American Free Trade Agreement, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with the U.S., and by Mexican government subsidies and workforce development efforts. According to the Mexican Federation of Aerospace Industries, or FEMIA, Mexico's aerospace exports rocketed from $1.3 billion in 2004 to $9.6 billion last year. Lizcano said Mexico manufactures everything from avionics, to landing gear and fuselages, and it's in the top ten overseas suppliers to the U.S. aerospace and defense sector. But coronavirus is blunting Mexico aerospace growth, and it is reverberating across its economy. Mexico's Labor Department said this month that the country had lost 346,748 jobs since mid-March due to the economic impact of the new coronavirus. FEMIA is arguing publicly that its government should designate Mexico's aerospace and defense sector as “essential,” to synchronize with the U.S. and Canada, its general manager, Luis Lizcano, told Defense News. It's also coordinating with its trade association counterparts in the U.S. and Canada. “What we're asking is that we standardize in this sector because we're going to break with supply chains with OEMs for commercial and defense aircraft,” Lizcano said. The U.S.-based Aerospace Industries Association had a similar argument: “Maintaining the free flow of goods and services between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is vital to our nation's economy and to our industry," AIA President and CEO Eric Fanning said in a statement. He hailed the recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement as aid to that goal. “However, this certainty is currently threatened by disruptions in America's common aerospace and defense supply chain affecting companies of all shapes and sizes. To restore certainty and keep goods and services moving, all levels of government within the U.S., Canada, and Mexico must work together to provide clear, coordinated, and direct guidance about how best to protect our workers, while ensuring aerospace and defense is declared an ‘essential' function in all three countries. "A unified North American approach helps ensure critical operations will continue under some of the strictest health and safety standards in the world and offer much-needed stability during this crisis.” On Monday, the CEO of the National Defense Industrial Association, retired Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, said the increasingly global nature of some American defense supply chains cannot and should not be reversed. The U.S. ought to keep its suppliers diversified, he said, to avoid choke points overseas. “What you don't want are single points of failure where if something happened in that country, it couldn't produce,” Carlisle said. “You have [to have] multiple, avenues to supply that capability. Some may be internal, and you can have more than one nation external.” https://www.defensenews.com/2020/04/21/covid-closed-mexican-factories-that-supply-us-defense-industry-the-pentagon-wants-them-opened/

  • Le Royaume-Uni, premier budget de défense en Europe ? Vrai ou Faux

    23 novembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Le Royaume-Uni, premier budget de défense en Europe ? Vrai ou Faux

    (B2) Le Royaume-Uni qui est depuis de nombreuses années le pays dépensant le plus pour sa défense en Europe serait-il en passe de perdre sa première place... La réponse est : oui si on se fie aux derniers Une question très symbolique mais aussi très politique. Toute l'argumentation britannique en effet, notamment lors du Brexit, a été de donner le premier rôle en matière de sécurité européenne au Royaume-Uni... Avec un argument sonnant et trébuchant : le budget britannique de défense est le premier de la classe européenne. Un propos qui n'est plus exact. Au fil du taux de changes En fait, tout dépend du taux de change Livre Sterling/Euro. Ainsi avec un taux de 1,15 (comme la semaine dernière), le Royaume-Uni demeure à la première place dans le classement européen des budgets de défense, que l'on prenne les budgets prévus pour 2018/20 19 (37,8 milliards £) ou pour 2019/2020 (38,8 milliards £). A un taux de 1,12 — comme au début de cette semaine avec la chute de la livre et les errements de la politique locale sur le Brexit —, le budget britannique passe derrière le budget allemand. L'Allemagne devrait en effet sacrément augmenter son budget défense pour 2019 (fruits de la croissance oblige) et passer à 43,2 milliards d'euros, selon la dernière mouture du projet de loi de finances votée par le Bundestag (1). Si le taux de change remonte, le budget britannique repassera devant. Mais ce temps de premier de la classe est compté. Un rattrapage progressif Quel que soit le taux de change ou les évolutions annuelles, il existe en effet une tendance de fond. L'Allemagne est en passer d'effectuer un rattrapage, au moins en termes budgétaires, de son effort de défense. Le budget allemand est déjà passé à la seconde place, reléguant la France à la troisième place (35,8 milliards pour 2019). En 2020 ou 2021, soit dans un faible laps de temps à l'échelon stratégique — le budget allemand devrait passer à la première place, reléguant le Royaume-Uni à la seconde place... Ce pour certaines années. Une évolution stratégique à très court terme Au niveau de la croissance, et de la bonne santé budgétaire allemande, et des engagements de ses responsables politiques, on peut prévoir que la progression du budget allemand va perdurer. C'est un changement stratégique notable... au moins en termes financiers, de capacités d'équipements, d'industries ou de recherche (2). Au jour du Brexit, le 29 mars, même si les deux évènements ne sont pas liés, ce sera pour le Royaume-Uni une certaine ‘claque' à ce qui est (à juste titre) une fierté nationale. (Nicolas Gros-Verheyde) La période budgétaire britannique très spécifique, court d'avril à mars, contrairement aux périodes budgétaires annuelles en cours sur le continent. Ce qui complique les classements. Pour pouvoir comparer équitablement les deux budgets, nous avons opéré une petite règle de trois, avec une péréquation lissant le budget britannique sur une période annuelle. Ce qui donne 38,55 milliards £ pour 2019. L'efficacité des armées obéit à d'autres données que celles de la mathématique. Et les contraintes historiques et constitutionnelles allemandes feront toujours que l'armée ne sera pas le premier instrument politique de l'Allemagne, à la différence de qui se passe en France et en Grande-Bretagne. Les armées françaises et britanniques, resteront donc en termes de dynamique opérationnelle et expéditionnaires toujours en tête. Nicolas Gros-Verheyde https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2018/11/23/le-royaume-uni-champion-des-budgets-de-defense-en-europe/

  • BAE Systems, QinetiQ tasked with A2 Bradley hybrid electric drive retrofit

    23 juillet 2020 | International, Terrestre

    BAE Systems, QinetiQ tasked with A2 Bradley hybrid electric drive retrofit

    by Ashley Roque The US Army has awarded BAE Systems with a USD32.3 million contract to refit two A2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles with hybrid electric drives (HEDs) in a bid to produce additional power for future weapons. In mid-July, the service announced the terms of the prototyping contract and said it is expecting to receive the retrofitted vehicles in two years. “By rapidly prototyping HEDs on a small scale, we can jump-start advanced electrification and hybridisation of army platforms, and encourage our industry partners to invest in these products to meet army standards,” said Lieutenant General Neil Thurgood, the director of hypersonics, directed energy, space and rapid acquisition, who is also overseeing the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO). The service is eyeing the HEDs as a way to reduce fuel consumption, and increase reliability and performance without adding additional size, weight, and power (SWaP) demands. This HED effort will consist of an upgraded engine, a transmission replaced by an electric drive motor, and the addition of lithium ion batteries. As a result, the engine power can produce electricity for greater mobility and can also be used to operate additional onboard equipment. One potential power use could include directed energy weapons, such as high-powered lasers, that pose numerous SWaP challenges. “HEDs add a high-voltage generator that turns engine power into electricity for greater mobility and for operating additional equipment, both of which increase combat effectiveness,” Mike Foster, director of the RCCTO's rapid acquisition, said in the announcement. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/bae-systems-qinetiq-tasked-with-a2-bradley-hybrid-electric-drive-retrofit

Toutes les nouvelles