Timing is Everything: The Role of Just-in-Time Privileged Access in Security Evolution

Sur le même sujet

• 

  22 juin 2018 | International, Naval

  Upgrading US Navy ships is difficult and expensive. Change is coming

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is looking at extending the life of its surface ships by as much as 13 years, meaning some ships might be 53 years old when they leave the fleet. Here's the main problem: keeping their combat systems relevant. The Navy's front-line combatants ― cruisers and destroyers ― are incredibly expensive to upgrade, in part because one must cut open the ship and remove fixtures that were intended to be permanent when they were installed. When the Navy put Baseline 9 on the cruiser Normandy a few years ago, which included all new consoles, displays and computer servers in addition to the software, it ran the service $188 million. Now, the capability and function of the new Baseline 9 suite on Normandy is staggering. The cost of doing that to all the legacy cruisers and destroyers in the fleet would be equally staggering: it would cost billions. So why is that? Why are the most advanced ships on the planet so difficult to keep relevant? And if the pace of change is picking up, how can the Navy stay relevant in the future without breaking the national piggy bank? Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager, understands this issue better than most. At this week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium, Vandroff described why its so darn hard to upgrade the old ships and how future designs will do better. Here's what Vandroff had to say: “Flexibility is a requirement that historically we haven't valued, and we haven't valued it for very good reasons: It wasn't important. “When you think of a ship that was designed in the ‘70s and built in the ‘80s, we didn't realize how fast and how much technology was going to change. We could have said: ‘You know what? I'm going to have everything bolted.' Bolt down the consoles in [the combat information center], bolt in the [vertical launch system] launchers ― all of it bolted so that we could more easily pop out and remove and switch out. “The problem was we didn't value that back then. We were told to value survivability and density because we were trying to pack maximum capability into the space that we have. That's why you have what you have with the DDG-51 today. And they are hard to modernize because we valued survivability and packing the maximum capability into the minimum space. And we achieved that because that was the requirement at the time. “I would argue that now as we look at requirements for future ships, flexibility is a priority. You are going to have to balance it. What if I have to bolt stuff down? Well, either we are going to give up some of my survivability standards or I'm going to take up more space to have the equivalent standards with an different kind of mounting system, for example. And that is going to generate a new set of requirements ― it's going to drive design in different directions than it went before. “I suppose you could accuse the ship designers in the 1980s of failure to foresee the future, but that's all of us. And the point is they did what they were told to do. Flexibility is what we want now, and I think you will see it drive design from this point forward because it is now something we are forced to value.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/21/upgrading-us-navy-ships-is-difficult-and-expensive-change-is-coming/

• 

  18 décembre 2018 | International, Terrestre

  Army picks two companies to build prototypes for a new cannon-toting vehicle to back up infantry

  By: Todd South The Army has selected two companies to provide prototypes of a new armored, tracked vehicle to give infantry units necessary firepower Both Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems will have the next 14 months to build and begin delivering 12 prototypes of the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle. BAE Systems will build an M8 Buford Armored Gun System with new capabilities and components. GD submitted an offering that puts a version of its latest Abrams turret together with a chassis that uses past work on the United Kingdom's AJAX program. The ultimate product will be either a 105- to 120mm cannon and a tracked vehicle that can withstand a classified level of enemy fire. At least two of the vehicles should be able to fit into the back of a C-17 aircraft. The need is aimed at near-peer threats. Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team, said that the current and future battlefield will challenge the firepower of the infantry. Right now, Infantry Brigade Combat Teams have artillery to knock out secured enemy positions. “But there's no precision munition to remove bunkers from the battlefield, to shoot into buildings in dense urban terrain,” Coffman said. The MPF vehicle and weapon will be used to “disrupt, break in and breach those secure defensive zones,” Coffman said. The requirement first emerged in the Army's vehicle modernization strategy in late 2015. The target was to give IBCTs a protected, long-range, cyber-resilient, precision, direct-fire capability for early or forcible entry operations. In February, GD and BAE, along with SAIC partnering with Singapore's ST Kinetics and CMI Defense, all submitted proposals. The SAIC team combined CMI's Cockeril 3105 turret with ST Kinetics next-generation armored fighting vehicle chassis. Officials would not discuss the reasons behind the selection. They expect a final decision to be made by fiscal year 2022. Fielding to the first units is expected by fiscal year 2025. The MPF is under the Army's NGCV CFT program, which is overseen by the Army Futures Command. The plans are for roughly 54 vehicles, initially. They will build 26 first, with an option to build 28 more and retrofit eight prototype vehicles. For the existing vehicle fleet, there's another program that's been conducting recent testing to also enhance the combat vehicle firepower and protection. The Army chose to evaluate two Active Protection Systems at a November live-fire rodeo, looking at whether either system could work as an interim protection system for one of its combat vehicles. The APS will also go onto the MPF vehicle in development at this time. The Israeli-made Trophy VPS by Rafael, a slimmer edition of the Trophy System already on the Abrams tank, and the German-made Active Defense System by Rheinmetall got a chance to showcase their products' abilities atop Strykers at the live fire, according to Military Times sister publication Defense News. Rheinmetall partnered with Michigan-based Unified Business Technologies. They've dubbed their system “Strike Shield.” Army representatives saw the Trophy VPS on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle at a demonstration in Israel in August, Defense News reported. Earlier this year, the Army awarded a $193 million contract to Leonardo DRS for its Trophy APS on the M1 Abrams tank. The program conducted four “soft kill” demonstrations using virtual threats with the system and controller. The APS is an interim solution as the Army develops its Modular Active Protection System as part of a larger suite of Vehicle Protection Systems. In late 2018, developers with the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center completed successful testing on the MAPS. The MAPS base kit is an array of sensors and countermeasures used with the Modular Active Protection Systems Controller, giving vehicle crews a single solution to run APS for incoming threats such as enemy drones or anti-tank weapons. Bill Beyer, MAPS Virtual Demonstrator lead, said in release following MAPS testing that the base kit would move into the vehicle program portfolio by mid-2019. Rafael was selected to provide its Trophy APS for the Abrams while IMI, also an Israeli company, has put forth the Iron Fist for the Bradley. Participants didn't fully install their systems on the vehicle. They put up mock rigs for testing in front of Strykers mounted their system on a Stryker. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/18/army-picks-two-companies-to-build-prototypes-for-a-whole-new-cannon-toting-vehicle-to-back-up-infantry/

• 

  26 novembre 2023 | International, Aérospatial

  Pentagon’s ‘Replicator’ gambit may speed decisions on lethal autonomy

  The program presents immense technological and personnel challenges for procurement and development.