SpaceX launches Air Force’s best GPS yet, ends banner year

Sur le même sujet

• 

  21 février 2020 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Lockheed Martin and Guardtime Federal Join Forces to Thwart Software Cyber Threats

  Forth Worth, Texas, February 20, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Guardtime Federal are working together to mitigate cyber threats across Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' software supply chain by integrating immutable digital integrity into architecture supporting research, design, development, manufacturing, integration and sustainment of its advanced products and services. Through the long-term agreement, the team envisions integrating the aerospace community's first mathematically verifiable end-to-end integrity check from the external software supply chain, through the development process and all the way to verification on delivered military systems. This digital transformation initiative will mitigate cyber threats across the software supply chain using KSI® blockchain signatures. "Lockheed Martin is committed to continuous Agile development of secure software," said Ron Bessire, vice president, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. "This collaboration with Guardtime Federal assures the highest level of digital security and enhances the integrity of our aircraft, further enabling pilots to achieve mission success in hostile cyber environments." Beyond the software development supply chain, the agreement also enables KSI® integration into the architecture of large-scale digitally directed manufacturing equipment to deter and detect any unauthorized residuals from third party routine maintenance actions. The desired end state is an advanced high integrity aerospace digital supply chain. "Whether the operation is land, sea, air, space, or cyber space, the control flow of digital data and processes is key to mission success," said David Hamilton, president of Guardtime Federal. "Our collaboration with Lockheed Martin is delivering a mathematically provable process for data integrity to the customer to assure that the software envisioned, developed, tested and certified is what makes it onto the platform every time." About Lockheed Martin Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 110,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. For more information, visit lockheedmartin.com. About Guardtime Federal Headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, Guardtime Federal is a U.S. chartered business that delivers mathematically verifiable data integrity for defense and aerospace. Guardtime Federal integrates Guardtime KSI® industrial blockchain technology with U.S.-developed high-end tamper resistant hardware for data and process integrity with digital provenance for cross boundary, embedded, and private networked environments to protect design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. CONTACT: Alyssa Campbell, +1 817-655-8118; alyssa.k.campbell@lmco.com SOURCE Lockheed Martin Aeronautics View source version on PR NewsWire: https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2020-02-20-Lockheed-Martin-and-Guardtime-Federal-Join-Forces-to-Thwart-Software-Cyber-Threats

• 

  2 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  F-35 program costs are evolving, and these savings matter

  By: Steven P. Bucci Last month, Congress held an oversight and accountability hearing regarding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's burdensome logistical IT system. The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General reported earlier this year that millions of additional dollars were spent in the form of labor hours by military personnel who manually tracked the plane's spare parts since its electronic logistical system didn't. The congressional review was undoubtedly warranted, especially as the F-35 program office phases in a newer system over the next two years to replace its legacy IT platform. But noticeably absent from this testimony, was a more fulsome discussion (and understanding) about the affordability of the program and how both acquisition costs and the price to fly the aircraft are significantly trending downward at a time that matters most. In an era of increased military competition against peer adversaries and during a period of tremendous budgetary constraints in the United States, incremental savings across a large enterprise such as the F-35 program matter. The Defense Department understands this well. It has smartly leveraged its buying power, driving down the cost of each F-35A to approximately $80 million one year earlier than planned — now costing taxpayers less than some of the less capable fourth-generation aircraft, and on a par with others. The F-15EX, for example, costs nearly $88 million, and gives our forces no help in a fifth-gen fight. Why spend more for less? This is critical because over the next five years, the number of F-35s purchased will more than double to approximately 1,200 aircraft. That translates to increased capacity and capability for the United States and its allies as they operate in the Indo-Pacific and European theaters. Congress recognizes that the costs to acquire the aircraft have been significantly reduced, and it has now rightfully turned its attention to the costs associated with sustaining the aircraft. But most lawmakers missed the opportunity during July's hearing to more fully explore a key statement made by the F-35′s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin. Lockheed announced that it has reduced its share of the aircraft's sustainability cost per flying hour over the past five years by nearly 40 percent, plummeting the costs to fly the aircraft to nearly $5,000 less each hour than earlier hourly costs. The company says it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build state-of-the-art tools, analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence, which has led to labor efficiency gains as well as improvements to supply response times and data quality. The company implemented robust asset management tools and robotic automation to eliminate manual tasks, while placing a concerted focus on improving the reliability of aircraft parts to meaningfully reduce future repair requirements and material costs. This is significant because the number of hours flown each year will increase by approximately 140,000 hours over the next five years alone. Those savings add up. And more can be done. The F-35′s manufacturer believes it can further drive down its cost share to fly the aircraft by approximately an additional 50 percent. This is all the more significant when considering that the military services and aircraft's engine maker, Pratt & Whitney, are responsible for more than one-half of the total sustainment costs of the program. If a similar level of savings can be achieved by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Pratt & Whitney, those savings can be confidently reinvested back into the program to ensure enough aircraft are being procured to deter and, if necessary, fight our adversaries. As the military services and foreign countries consider future threats and the capabilities needed to impede adventuresome opponents, these savings matter. These savings come at the same time the DoD reports that the aircraft's mission-capable rate has increased from the mid-50th percentile to the low 70th percentile from just a couple of years ago. And further improvements in the aircraft's mission-capable rate should be forthcoming as repair backlogs and mismatched spare parts are corrected by a new IT logistical system. A theoretical military principle suggests that steady quantitative changes can lead to a sudden, qualitative leap. After many, many years of sustained focus to drive down F-35 costs, the program may be representative of that maxim and allow the Defense Department to fully realize the advantages of the F-35′s gamechanging technologies. Steven P. Bucci is a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He previously served as a U.S. Army Special Forces officer and is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense. The Heritage Foundation takes no funding from any government. It does take donations from corporate entities, which average about 4 percent of their total funding in any given year. The think tank reports it does not take a position based on donations, nor do donors have editorial input.. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/01/f-35-program-costs-are-evolving-and-these-savings-matter/

• 

  18 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

  The military could save hundreds of billions — by capping pay, scrapping aircraft, slashing benefits, experts say

  By: Leo Shane III WASHINGTON — Analysts from the Congressional Budget Office say the government could trim hundreds of billions from the federal deficit by enacting a host of already discussed military and veterans program reforms. The problem is that those reforms include some of the most controversial and politically unpopular policies of the last few years, things like limiting military pay raises, ending a host of military equipment purchases, and cutting back on veterans benefits. The document released last week — CBO's annual “options for reducing the deficit” report — lists more than 120 ideas to reduce federal spending or boost federal revenues over the next 10 years. Authors said the goal is to “reflect a range of possibilities” of moves that lawmakers could make in dealing with government debt and escalating federal programming costs. Twenty of the proposals would affect the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, including a plan to cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent ($591 billion in reduced budget authority over the next decade). That dramatic cut would “require DOD to decrease the size of its forces, slow the rate at which it modernizes weapon systems, or do both,” which in turn would prompt a host of complaints from military leaders and defense lawmakers. Still, the size of the savings involved show why the ideas continue to attract debate on Capitol Hill each year, even with the significant disruptions they may bring. Here is a look at some of the other potential VA and Pentagon moves: Limit pay raises for troops ($18 billion in savings over 10 years) The CBO idea would give troops an annual raise of 0.5 percent less than the expected growth in civilian salaries. Service members would still see annual raises, but opponents of the idea argue that those increases wouldn't keep up with the cost of living for military families. President Barack Obama's Pentagon capped the military raises at this level for three years during his presidency, leading to criticism from advocates that he had created a new gap in military and civilian wages. President Donald Trump suggested a 0.3 percent reduction in the expected raise formula in his first budget, but saw the proposal rejected by Congress. Narrow eligibility for VA disability benefits ($33 billion over 10 years) The CBO plan would drop a host of conditions not directly related to military service — illnesses like arteriosclerotic heart disease, hemorrhoids and multiple sclerosis — from the list of claims eligible for disability benefits. More than 750,000 veterans' checks would be affected by the move. Any such trims in benefits have prompted harsh attacks from veterans groups, who have accused supporters of breaking faith with men and women who were promised lifelong assistance for their military service. Cancel new F-35 purchases ($16 billion over 10 years), retire the F-22 fleet ($30 billion over 10 years) and delay development of the B-21 bomber until after 2028 ($45 billion over 10 years) All three ideas would require Air Force officials to continue using aging aircraft, a concern for Pentagon planners who have seen a spike in aviation accidents in recent years. The CBO report acknowledged that a disadvantage of the idea would be making the military “less flexible against advanced enemy air defense systems” but said the current mix of aircraft types already in use by the services would mitigate some of those concerns. Stop building Ford-class aircraft carriers ($18 billion over 10 years) Under this option, the Navy would stop building new aircraft carriers after the USS Enterprise, scheduled to be completed in 2027. A carrier set for the start of construction in 2023 would be scrapped. The CBO report argues that even with the move, the Navy would still have 11 active carriers until 2036 given its current fleet size. However, defense lawmakers have long argued against any delays in ship building schedules, given the long wait for construction and fielding of new vessels. End VA's Individual Unemployability program for retirement-age veterans ($48 billion over 10 years) Trump also suggested this idea in his first VA budget, only to have lawmakers and veterans groups soundly reject it. The IU program provides extra benefits to veterans unable to work because of disabilities, even if they don't have a 100 percent disabled rating. Supporters have argued that money should stop once Social Security payouts begin. Opponents of the idea could leave as many as 235,000 veterans in dire financial need. Reduce military housing allowances to 80 percent of rent costs ($15 billion over 10 years) Under this plan, BAH payments wouldn't change for troops until they move, but it would slowly increase their out-of-pocket costs for housing. The change would also create savings for the VA, since post-9/11 GI Bill housing stipends are tied to the military housing formula. Similar BAH reform proposals on Capitol Hill have met fierce opposition in recent years. Advocates argue that since military members have little say in their next duty assignment, they shouldn't have to shoulder the costs of unexpected moves and expensive housing costs. Replace thousands of troops with civilian workers ($17 billion over 10 years) The CBO idea calls for reducing military end strength by 80,000 over four years and replacing them with 64,000 civilian employees. The work would not be directly related to warfighting, and the health care and ancillary costs of non-military workers would create significant savings compared to service members' benefits. But Congress has worked to increase the military's end strength in recent years, saying it brings more readiness and flexibility to the overall force. An end-strength cut of that size would represent a major political backtrack for many elected officials. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/12/17/analysts-find-hundreds-of-billions-in-military-savings-by-capping-military-pay-scrapping-aircraft-slashing-veterans-benefits