16 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

The US Navy’s ‘Manhattan Project’ has its leader

WASHINGTON – The US Navy's top officer has tasked a former surface warfare officer turned engineering duty officer to create a powerful, all-connecting network service leaders believe they will need to fight and win against a high-end foe such as China.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday tasked Rear Adm. Douglas Small to lead an effort that will “develop networks, infrastructure, data architecture, tools, and analytics that support the operational and developmental environment that will enable our sustained maritime dominance.”

Calling the effort “Project Overmatch,” Gilday called it the Navy's top priority after the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine.

“Beyond recapitalizing our undersea deterrent, there is no higher developmental priority in the U.S. Navy,” Gilday said. “All other efforts are supporting you. Your goal is to enable a Navy that swarms the sea, delivering synchronized lethal and non-lethal effects from near-and-far, every axis, and every domain.”

In the past, Gilday has referred to the effort to field a powerful network as its “Manhattan Project,” harkening back to the rapid development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s. The urgency behind the effort to create this network highlights the growing sense of unease the Navy has around its position in the world as China builds towards its goal of achieving first-rate military power status by 2049.

“The Navy's ability to establish and sustain sea control in the future is at risk," Gilday said in his letter. “I am confident that closing this risk is dependent on enhancing Distributed Maritime Operations through a teamed manned/unmanned force that exploits artificial intelligence and machine learning. I am not confident we are building the Naval Operational Architecture connecting and enabling this future force as quickly as we must.”

The network is to connect with the Air Force's Joint All-Domain Command and Control effort, which the services are all lining up behind.

Breaking Defense first reported the memo.

Small started his career as a surface warfare officer but became an engineering duty officer in 1997. He has a background in electronic warfare and above-water sensors, as well as work at the Missile Defense Agency. In the Oct. 1 memo, Gilday has tasked him to report after 60 days, then every 90 days after that.

In a separate memo to Vice Adm. James Kilby, the Navy's top warfighting requirements officer, Gilday said he wanted the Navy to develop both a concept of operations and a coherent kill chain based on an “any-sensor, any-shooter,” construct, an idea that would mean that any track obtained by any sensor can be passed to any ship or platform with a missile with which to kill it, something that would be enabled by Small's network.

‘We don't have and adequate net'

In comments last year, Gilday said the Navy needed to move out with urgency to create a powerful network.

“The biggest challenge for us is to join all the main command and control,” Gilday said. “We're building netted weapons, netted platforms, and netted [command-and-control] nodes, but we don't have an adequate net, and that's a critical piece.”

The Navy has been working toward a concept of operations that links its ships, aircraft and unmanned platforms by way of communications relay nodes — such as small drones — or whole ships — such as the future frigate or high-tech aircraft like the E-2D Hawkeye.

The idea is to spread the force out over a wide area, as opposed to clustered around a carrier, to put a maximum burden on Chinese intelligence and reconnaissance assets. This spread-out, networked force would connect the various shooters so that if any individual node in the network sees something to kill, any Navy or Air Force asset with weapons within range can kill it.

This has led to a push for ever-longer-range missiles. But to make it work, all the pieces must be linked on a reliable communications network. The current architecture, according to the Navy, is insufficient for the job, given Chinese and Russian investments in electronic warfare that can interfere with communications.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/naval/2020/10/14/the-us-navys-manhattan-project-has-its-leader/

Sur le même sujet

18 janvier 2019 | International, Naval, Terrestre

Marines Want Missiles To Sink Ships From Shores, And They Want Them Fast
By PAUL MCLEARY WASHINGTON The Marine Corps has kicked off a rapid development program to begin firing long-range anti-ship missiles from shore-based ground vehicles in an effort to add more punch to the Navy's growing anti-ship capabilities, which are aimed squarely at Chinese and Russian advances. Dubbed the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System — that's NEMSIS to you — the program has completed its design phase. For the missile itself, Marines are looking at Lockheed Martin's new Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), with stealthy features to penetrate enemy missile defenses, a 1,000-pound warhead, and a range disclosed only as “over 200 miles”; Raytheon's Naval Strike Missile (NSM) already chosen as an upgrade for Navy Littoral Combat Ships, with a 264-lb warhead and a 115-mile range; and Boeing's venerable Harpoon, whose variants have a 500-lb warhead and ranges between 70 and 150 miles. The program kicked off last year with a request for information (RFI), after which companies signed OTA agreements with the service in September. Final proposals were submitted in December. Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/marines-want-missiles-to-sink-ships-from-shores-and-they-want-them-fast/
3 novembre 2022 | International, C4ISR

Safran and MBDA take a majority stake in CILAS
Safran Electronics & Defense and MBDA have completed the acquisition of ArianeGroup's 63% majority stake in CILAS, a French company specialized in lasers for military applications. The acquisition was carried out through a joint company created for the purpose called HMS Laser, equally owned by Safran Electronics & Defense and MBDA. Founded in 1966, CILAS designs, develops, produces and sells laser products and optical solutions for military and civil applications.
4 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

NDIA’s Wesley Hallman on a liability shield and other defense priorities for the next stimulus
By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON―As the Pentagon works to defray the coronavirus pandemic's impact on its network of suppliers, it's worked hand-in-glove with defense and aerospace trade associations to find and address problems in the supply chain. The National Defense Industrial Association, whose members stretch into the lower tiers of the defense industrial base, surveyed more than 700 small businesses to find that cash-flow disruptions remained a problem as the Pentagon and major defense firms increase payments to suppliers. Retired Air Force Col. Wesley Hallman is NDIA's senior vice president of policy, charged with monitoring Capitol Hill on matters of concern to defense, including annual budgets, acquisition and procurement reform. This week, he spoke with Defense News about NDIA's priorities as Congress mulls how to follow its third coronavirus response bill, worth $2.2 trillion and intended to speed relief across the American economy. With NDIA's finger on the pulse of the supply chain and recent survey, how do you interpret the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord's numbers, demonstrating more defense firms that have closed now reopening? What are you seeing among your members? As you know, A&S has been holding a call on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and we've been participating in all of those. The Defense Contract Management Agency has really been the clearinghouse for all these companies' challenges, and in fact we've been pushing our member companies that are seeing challenges to go to the website and fill in information about what their challenges are what they're seeing. And DoD has been responsive when something has closed down for whatever reason. Undersecretary Lord herself has picked up the phone to make calls to state governors to explain that we work very hard to ensure that the defense industrial base is considered essential. That was a question when people were starting to call for shelters in place. The very issues these companies have been seeing are things you're expecting: the result of closures, and sometimes those closures aren't state and local but on installations. Many contractors have to go to work on installations, and installation commanders are the mayors of their bases; they're tasked with the safety and security of their installations, and sometimes they've made the call to close facilities that have an effect on those performing contracts. There's also a growing concern on liability. There's uncertainty surrounding contractors' liability during the crisis for heeding calls to keep everything turned on. They also have to make sure that they're keeping their workforce safe and secure, and sometimes that's an issue as you look at reopening everything. Our last NDIA survey was really about what kind of things do you need to reopen to get to a new normal, where we're producing on contracts. Access to personal protective equipment is a concern, safety is a concern and more. DCMA has been following up with those companies to see what those issues are and what would allow them to reopen. We all know the supply chain ― and I'm sure you remember our report on the health of the defense industrial base at the beginning of the year ― but one of the things we highlighted is we have a relatively fragile supply chain already. This is a concern of the associations, the Pentagon and particular House Armed Services Committee members. Cash flow was also identified as an issue in NDIA's survey, and it's been a feature of DoD's press conferences. Ellen Lord said she was relying on the trade associations to help DoD understand how its accelerated progress payments are trickling down the supply chain to smaller firms, from the primes. How detailed is the information the associations are providing, and are the primes doing what's expected of them? What I have is anecdotal. It's proprietary data, and our members don't necessarily share that with us. I did get calls from all of the majors asking about accelerating payments through the supply chain, and one company was very explicit that “we have access to capital to get through this, but our supply chain doesn't.” Lockheed Martin has been very public with their commitment, and I know they're worried, and they're incentivized to keep their supply chain healthy because they've got to produce. The companies know their supply chains better than anyone else, so they're incentivized to push those dollars. It's not the amount of money but the velocity, and they understand that. This is me talking, but what the Pentagon wants to show ― and you've seen multiple groups saying, “not a dime for defense” ― is that the money that's being accelerated to these companies is not going to line anybody's pocket. This is to allow folks to survive. And beyond the national security aspect of this, which we could talk about forever, these are real companies with real people, doing real jobs that are key to our economy. They're as valid as any of the other small businesses that apply for the Paycheck Protection Program. So, ‘not a dime for defense' is I think a very shortsighted bumper sticker, because these are real people developing real capabilities for the defense of our nation. There have been some progressive lawmakers, as well as the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who have already pushed back on the Pentagon's upcoming request for funding. But more broadly, what would NDIA like to see legislatively in the next stimulus package, including policy―or are your priorities being addressed directly through the Pentagon? So there's only so much the Pentagon can do without appropriations. What we're looking at ― and we are a 501(c)3, non-lobbying organization, though we engage when asked what we think ― is we think, first off, there needs to be a plus-up in appropriations for FY20. We all know that there's a lot of challenges to performing on contracts right now that are going to extend the length of those contracts. There's been a slowdown in the ability to perform on contracts because of this, and in some cases it has made made delivery on contracts more expensive. We believe that should be reflected in appropriations, and that shouldn't steal from the future. You know, we have a National Defense Strategy, we have a future-years defense program, there's already president's budget in. We don't think that the FY21 should be paying the increased cost for FY20. So it would be a defense supplemental to cover the extra expense to produce on contract because of COVID-19. That's first and foremost. The other thing is ― and you may know the Defense Logistics Agency and others, they pay out of a working capital fund. Back in November, DLA stopped following the accelerated payment policy passed by Congress because their working capital fund didn't have the liquidity to make that happen. They backed off to a 30-day instead of a 15-day payout. Well, that was hard enough in November, December, January, February. But you start getting to March with COVID-19, and these folks that have already performed on contract and are waiting to get their money are waiting an extra 15 days because of the lack of liquidity in the working capital funds. That's not acceptable. So another thing we'd like to see is a bump up in the working capital fund so those accelerated payments can start happening the way that Congress intended. You referenced liability issues. There's been a movement afoot to shield companies from lawsuits as they seek to reopen that's been met with partisan pushback. Are liability protections something NDIA favors? You have to be very careful because you don't want companies to do something that is not smart or not safe, but you do have to look at it because there's a potential that this is a ripe avenue for liability suits. We would rather see that stemmed up front so we can focus on producing for the war fighter. On a positive note, are you seeing companies employing any novel solutions to problems stemming from the pandemic? The Defense Department has a Joint Acquisition Task Force where companies can go and say what they can produce. We have worked with a lot of companies who can do harnesses for parachutes or where they can shift production to make you masks or other PPE. So it's been kind of heartening to see. A lot of small businesses are saying, ‘Hey, we can do this.' And we direct them over to the Joint Acquisition Task Force, which can look at their capabilities and explore those. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/02/interview-ndias-wesley-hallman-on-a-liability-shield-and-other-defense-priorities-for-the-next-stimulus

Toutes les nouvelles