Zyxel Releases Patches for Firmware Vulnerabilities in EoL NAS Models

Sur le même sujet

• 

  27 mai 2024 | International, Terrestre

  The ISO 42001 Compliance Checklist

  The ISO 42001 compliance checklist helps to lay the foundation for what your organization should expect when working towards certification.

• 

  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/

• 

  17 juin 2020 | International, Naval

  With the future of the US Navy’s carrier air wing murky, Congress demands a plan

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The US Navy will need to develop a roadmap for developing future fighter aircraft years after it became apparent that the Navy's mainstay F/A-18 Super Hornet would struggle to keep the carrier outside of range to be effective against Chinese anti-ship missiles. A provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the National Defense Authorization Act told the Navy to come up with a concrete plan for fielding next generation fighter aircraft, a move that comes months after congressional appropriators gutted 2020 funding for the Navy's next-generation air dominance program, taking the requested $20.7 million and slashing it to $7.1 million. By way of comparison, the Air Force requested $1 billion in funding for its Next Generation Air Dominance program, but saw a relatively minor 10 percent cut from appropriators that was cited as a “classified adjustment.” The SASC mark “requires the Navy to create a fighter aircraft force structure acquisition strategy and report on aircraft carrier air wing composition and carrier-based strike fighter squadrons to better prepare for potential conflicts envisioned by the National Defense Strategy,” according to a summary posted on the Committee's website. The Navy likely upset the congressional apple cart by zeroing out a planned buy of at least 36 Super Hornets that would have spanned FY22 through FY24. That move that should save $4.5 billion that the service plans to redirect to its sixth-generation fighter program, known as Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX. So, what's F/A-XX? The Navy has tried to address the range issue with fielding an unmanned tanker, the MQ-25 Stingray, but that program could face delays if the Navy's operational schedule doesn't align to allow testing. But what exactly the F/A-XX will be is anyone's guess. The Navy finished an Analysis of Alternatives in June of last year and the spokesman for the Navy's assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition told Defense News earlier this month that the program was in the concept development phase. But some experts believe that given the Navy's budgetary constraints for the foreseeable future, the F/A-XX should be a derivative of a current aircraft. Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a retired submarine officer, said in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that it would make sense to keep buying the F/A-18s to keep the line hot for a potential F/A-XX. “I think the F/A-XX is going to need to be probably a derivative of an existing airplane rather than some complete new clean sheet design given the fiscal constraints we're under,” Clark said. “Therefore, keeping production lines going for both of our existing strike fighters is a good idea to allow both to be an option for this future F/A-XX.” In 2019, formed Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work told Defense News that the next fighter should really be unmanned, and that going that route would help save some money. “The focus should be on the F/A-XX. If you really want range, that has to be the platform you are shooting for,” Work said. “Because with the Navy buying the F-35Cs, and the Marine [Corps] buying the F-35Bs and the Navy buying the Block III Super Hornet, you are not going to be able to afford two or three programs. So, the F/A-XX is the one you need to focus on. And if the analysis shows you need range, that points to unmanned.” But naval aviation has shown very little appetite for fielding an unmanned long-range fighter, and the Navy more generally has been tepid on unmanned technologies, according to former Chief of Naval Operations retired Adm. Garry Roughead, who testified at HASC alongside Clark. “I reflect that we flew an unmanned aircraft off of an aircraft carrier in 2012,” Roughead said. “2012! That has not happened again. Eight years, in my mind, of a hiatus in trying to advance this new technology is not aggressive by any stretch of the imagination.” Valerie Insinna contributed to this report from Washington. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/15/with-the-future-us-navys-carrier-air-wing-murky-congress-demands-a-plan/