26 janvier 2023 | International, C4ISR
Pentagonâs AI chief says data labeling is key to win race with China
"If we're going to beat China, and we have to beat China in AI," CDAO Craig Martell said, "we have to find a way to label at scale."
23 juillet 2018 | International, C4ISR
With cyber forces underequipped, DoD turns to rapid prototyping contracting
By: Mark Pomerleau
U.S. Cyber Command's main warrior cadre has been deemed ready for war and now the organization is shifting its focus to readiness and operations.
Sources have told Fifth Domain that DoD's cyber warriors lack certain skills, capabilities and even equipment. One source went so far as to say that the list of what these forces can do is short.
As a result, the military wants to quickly get these new cyber warriors the tools they need. To do this, they are turning to contracting vehicles such as other transaction authorities and the so-called IT Box construct as a way to skirt the traditional acquisition system, which is often derided as lethargic, bureaucratic and not optimized for the high tempo of the software-centric world.
These approaches allow for the government to partner with non-traditional companies for less mature technologies and prototypes meaning solutions, albeit some that are not always 100 percent mature, get to warfighters faster. This approach allows DoD to be more agile and flexible in procuring and equipping, multiple industry sources told Fifth Domain. However, one potential downside to this approach is a lack of competition for this work.
What do cyber warriors need?
As the command is growing, maturing and standing on its own, it needs training modules, infrastructure to conduct operations on and tools.
Leaders say one of the most critical needs of cyber warriors is a training platform. And industry officials add that often the first time cyber warriors face certain techniques is during a mission. This is because of a lack of a holistic and robust training environment, similar to the Army's combat training centers or the Air Force's Red Flag.
To change that the Army, on behalf of Cyber Command, is in charge of an effort called the Persistent Cyber Training Environment. The Army, using an OTA approach, is running a series of innovation challenges as a way to prototype capability. This approach would provide an interim solution to cyber warriors while at the same time reduce risk and help the larger program of record.
Another capability cyber warriors will need is an operational platform from which to house tools, launch operations and perform command and control.
Currently, the Air Force is working this program on behalf of Cyber Command. The Unified Platform, as it's called, is considered one of CYBERCOM's largest and most critical acquisition programs to date. Industry officials have said it is necessary to conduct cyber operations and is critical to national security.
The Air Force's acquisition strategy is not totally clear, with some industry sources noting that they are not taking an OTA approach to this critical capability. The service is currently using the General Services Administration's premier enterprise Alliant Government wide Acquisition Contract vehicle in which multiple contractors will be awarded and will compete against each other for individual task orders on the final program. Federal agencies traditionally use Alliant to implement new and innovative technologies.
(Potential) Drawbacks
Despite being an attractive option to rapidly equip forces, these vehicles come with some risk.
Industry officials acknowledge that OTAs were meant for prototyping, research and development and risk reduction for larger programs of record, not as a replacement for procuring large programs and platforms. While Congress has extended the use of OTAs for actual development of production, William LaPlante, senior vice president and general manager for MITRE National Security Sector, calls this “a dodgy area.”
LaPlante, who served as assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition,, told Fifth Domain that the OTAs can limit competition. Since these rapid prototyping vehicles enable DoD to work with non-traditional companies that don't have to bring forth fully developed solutions, they tend to favor smaller tech companies as opposed to larger defense contractors.
LaPlante said if one subscribes to the philosophy that the best product comes from a full competition, the competition part of these contracting mechanisms is not very clear.
Second, he said, going faster means the upfront homework in the way of budgeting, market research and strategy may be neglected. While this work might take a bit of time, if it's not done, he said, the risk of making mistakes increases.
Going forward, LaPlante noted that it will be important how blowback and failure is handled because “there's no question mistakes will be made."
There is also the issue of integration. With a series of disparate systems, it is unclear who will be the integrator: government or industry?
“It's a perpetual discussion of the last 20-30 years: is the government itself strong enough to assume the role of integrator? Probably not. You need some industry partner,” he said.
Sur le même sujet
-
-
15 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial
Funding for small launch providers still in question after withdrawal of $116M in contracts
Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force's top acquisition official hopes money will materialize for small launch providers whose Defense Production Act contracts were withdrawn earlier this month due to a lack of funding. In mid-June, the Space and Missile Systems Center announced that it would award ride-share contracts to six firms by using funding meant to bolster companies made financially vulnerable by the coronavirus pandemic. However, the government in early July reversed course, recalling the $116 million designated for small launch providers because of “additional small business needs that were generated,” such as other government loan programs, said Will Roper, the Air Force's assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics “My hope is that whenever there's new [Defense Production Act] Title 3 funding or when resource frees up due to other efforts not executing as planned, that those [contracts] are the first to go back into the hopper,” Roper told reporters Tuesday. “If I were asked today to put in one new Title 3 initiative, it's small launch because I think it's going to be an amazing industry base for this country, and if properly influenced, my military mission can be highly disruptive in future war fighting, especially if satellites can be put up in a very responsive way that changes the calculus for holding space assets at risk.” In the June announcement, SMC stated that Aevum, Astra, X-BOW, Rocket Lab USA, Space Vector and VOX Space would each receive sole-source contracts for two ride-share missions to be conducted over the next 24 months. But it may no longer be possible for the companies to get all $116 million originally set aside for those contracts, Roper acknowledged. “I don't know if that much will free up,” he said. “We have had quite a few come in lower than initially estimated. So it's possible that a resource will be freed, and whatever it is, we can scale some effort in small launch.” With venture capital drying up due to worldwide economic instability caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Pentagon leaders have been vocal about the impact on the emerging small launch industry, which they see as a critical capability that could allow the Space Force to launch small satellites more cheaply and rapidly. In April, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord labeled it — along with shipbuilding and aviation — as one of the three sectors the Defense Department was most concerned could be permanently impacted. “Much of the industry have limited flight capability or are in the critical transition from development to flight, and this funding restriction may prevent or delay these systems,” Col. Rob Bongiovi, director of SMC Launch Enterprise Systems Directorate, told C4ISRNET in April. “The Space and Missile Systems Center is evaluating the impacts to the small launch industrial base to consider actions to enable a robust U.S. launch industrial base.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/07/14/funding-for-small-launch-providers-still-in-question-after-withdrawal-of-116m-in-contracts/
-
14 août 2018 | International, Naval
US Navy’s focus on rapid acquisition is opening up opportunities for Europe
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy intends to get much bigger, and that has meant new openings for European companies in the U.S. defense market. The Navy's new over-the-horizon missile destined for the littoral combat ship and the future frigate was recently awarded to the Norwegian firm Kongsberg, in partnership with U.S. company Raytheon, for its Naval Strike Missile. The future frigate program itself has awarded contracts to Spain's Navantia and Italy's Fincantieri for design work before the Navy selects a design later this year, meaning the service's next surface combatant may be a European design. And for the Navy's future training helicopter, both Franco-Dutch company Airbus and Italian firm Leonardo are top competitors for that program. Analysts say the Navy's recent surge in interest has been spurred by a confluence of circumstances that could mean even more opportunities for foreign companies looking to break into the U.S. market. Increased defense budgets are one reason the European companies have been seeing more business from the Navy and other American military branches. But a shift in the way the Defense Department tries to fill capabilities gaps has made the space more competitive for overseas firms, said Dan Gouré, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank. As the Navy and other services have shifted toward great power competition, it has found a number of capabilities that were not hugely important in a unipolar world have again become requirements with the reemergence of Russia and the rise of China as security threats. One such area is the small surface combatant, or FFG(X) program, which would be needed to escort supply convoys and work as a survivable sensor node in a larger surface combatant network. “With the frigate, for example, we hadn't built one of those in 40 years, but the Europeans have been building them for decades,” Gouré noted. “And if we needed a diesel-electric sub, they'd of course be the first in line.” This emphasis on speed of acquisition has also helped because the Navy and the rest of the Department of Defense are reluctant to get tied down by a yearslong, inevitably over-budget development process unless necessary, Gouré said. “The trend has been toward [other transaction authority] contracts, and that has made the European companies credible competitors,” he said. Another factor is that the Navy has been more willing to make trades on capabilities, said Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “I think what's new is that the Navy is openly seeking foreign proposals for some of these major new programs,” Clark said. “Foreign companies have always been able to submit proposals in response to RFPs, but usually they don't offer the high-end capability the U.S. is usually seeking. “The big change is that the Navy is willing to get a less-sophisticated capability in to get a design that is more mature.” In the case of the Navy's trainer helicopter competition, past success with European companies inside the DoD could be a driving factor in Airbus' and Leonardo's competitive bids. Airbus' North American division has been successful with the U.S. Army's Lakota program, built by Airbus Helicopters in Columbus, Mississippi, which is where the company would build its H135 helicopter if selected for the program. The Army has been happy with Lakota, so much so that it has been pushing to buy more of the airframes despite legal battles over the contracts. But the success of Airbus Helicopters with the Army is possible for much the same reason that, for example, Australian-owned Austal USA has been successful building both the trimaran version of the littoral combat ship and the expeditionary fast transport: a major manufacturing infrastructure investment in the United States. And that kind of cash outlay for a program can scare away European competitors. Getting around “Buy American” provisions would literally take an act of Congress. Despite having already developed, tested and fielded the capability the Navy wants, Kongsberg had to team with American defense giant Raytheon to sell its missile to the DoD. The “Buy American” provisions laid down and regularly upheld by Congress for defense procurement does have protectionist overtones, but there is a national security argument as well. In the event of a major, protracted conflict with Russia or China, it wouldn't be advantageous to have major suppliers located an ocean away or in occupied territory. And maintaining the industrial base has long been a concern of the U.S. Navy because of the limited the number of trained workers with experience who are building ships and nuclear reactors. Navy officials have testified that the shrinking industrial base, including the shipbuilders and the litany of subcontractors and vendors, is a significant concern. In 2015, then-head of the Navy's research, development and acquisition office Sean Stackley testified before Congress that some of the shipyards were just a contract away from going under. “We have eight shipyards currently building U.S. Navy ships. And of those eight shipyards, about half of them are a single contract away from being what I would call ‘not viable,' ” Stackley told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “In other words, the workload drops below the point at which the shipyard can sustain the investment that it needs to be competitive and the loss of skilled labor that comes with the breakage of a contract.” https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2018/08/09/us-navys-focus-on-rapid-acquisition-is-opening-up-opportunities-for-europe/