Nouvelles

By: Kyle Rempfer The Air Force has spent the past few years gearing up for a near-peer fight against adversaries with high-end air forces that match their own. While new doctrines and technologies occupy much of the planning for such a shift, another type of preparation is needed: reorganizing wings and squadrons. One possibility on the table is a return to composite wings. In the early 1990s, the Air Force organized the 366th Fighter Wing out of Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, into the service's premier “air intervention” composite wing. For roughly a decade, the wing flew fighters, bombers and tankers with the goal of meeting the challenges of a post-Cold War world order — where conflict could arrive anywhere, anytime. “They were ready to pack up and go fight as a unified team,” Lt. Gen. Mark Kelly, commander of 12th Air Force, told a crowd of Air Force leaders Monday at the 2018 Air, Space and Cyber Conference in Washington, D.C. “But that was disbanded, and part of it came down to money," Kelly said. "The cost per flying hour of trying to sustain the small-fleet dynamics there didn't look great on spreadsheets.” But Kelly argues that financial assessment was faulty. The quality of the training airmen were getting was being compared to the day-to-day operations at other bases around the Air Force. In reality, it was more comparable to the day-to-day training at Red Flag — a two-week, advanced air combat training exercise still held several times a year in Nevada and Alaska. “Frankly, the training they were getting compared more to Red Flag daily ops," Kelly said. “And that would be a good problem to have and a good construct to be able to build.” The Air Force is rethinking how it constructs wings and squadrons, as well as how it deploys airmen, as it shifts to better align with the 2018 National Defense Strategy, according to Kelly. As it stands, “airmen only come together to fight at the line of scrimmage," Kelly said. For instance, before airmen arrive at a forward base to fight against insurgents in Afghanistan, they may have a unified command at the squadron level, but a unified command at the wing level is severely lacking. Additionally, airmen preparing to deploy today benefit from a surplus of “spin-up" time. They know when their unit is scheduled to deploy and have the luxury of training to meet that challenge well in advance. “That's a luxury that we cannot rely on in great power competition,” Kelly said. Organizing some aircraft and airmen into composite wings could provide the training and deployment structure necessary for fights against modern militaries, Kelly said. The composite wing concept was heavily pushed in 1991 by then Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak, according to his biography on the Defense Department's website. McPeak wanted to organize wings by their mission-set, not aircraft type. According to his “air intervention” doctrine, a wing deploying for a near-peer fight should have all the aircraft and airmen it needs to accomplish its mission with limited, or possibly no, outside support. This meant one wing could potentially operate electronic warfare aircraft for the suppression of enemy air defenses, bombers to lay waste to enemy fortifications, fighters to engage in air-to-air combat, and tankers to refuel them all. After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, the old composite squadron idea was mostly discarded. The 366th Fighter Wing was restored to fly F-16Js, and the consolidation of the Air Force's KC-135 and B-1 forces led to the reallocation of the wing's bombers and tankers to McConnell AFB, Kansas, and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, according to Mountain Home's website. But composite wings, and the idea of sustainable fights with more or less autonomous Air Force commanders, is back in vogue. Funding was one of the biggest challenges to composite wings back in the day, but the reasons for that unit structure are better appreciated now as concerns about China and Russia preoccupy defense planners. To fuel a restructuring, steady funding will be key, according to Kelly. He projected the Air Force's shift to great power competition will continue to be a focus of the defense budget into 2021 and 2022. But regardless of the funds Congress ultimately appropriates for the Air Force in the coming years, restructuring for a near-peer fight needs to happen, Kelly said. “This has to happen regardless of if we have the force we have today with only one more airman, or the force we need with tens of thousands more airmen," he added. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/18/bombers-fighters-and-tankers-unite-will-the-air-force-rebuild-composite-wings-to-fight-near-peer-foes

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has added two new technical issues to the KC-46 tanker's list of problems, potentially throwing a wrench into the projected delivery of the first tanker in October. The service confirmed to Defense News on Sept. 17 that both deficiencies are category-1 , the most serious designation of technical problems, and revolve around the tanker's refueling boom system. At this point, the Air Force is unsure whether the two problems will be solved in time for KC-46 manufacturer Boeing to deliver the first tanker next month, said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. “Boeing and the program office are still reviewing the test data and assessing the risk and potential solutions to these deficiencies, and proceeding in parallel to aircraft delivery,” she said in a statement. The first new deficiency, which the service has labeled “No Indication of Inadvertent Boom Loads,” refers to situations where boom operators unintentionally provide an input into the flight control stick that induces loads on the boom while it is in contact with a receiver aircraft. The KC-46 currently has no way to notify that operator that this is happening. The second deficiency was found when pilots of receiver aircraft reported that the boom is too stiff during the part of the process when the receiver plane moves forward into the fuel transfer zone. “We discovered these deficiencies during the course of flight testing,” Stefanek said. “As the program progresses through receiver certification testing, we are still in discovery phase with the tanker/receiver pairs. ... The test team is still writing the test reports, but submitted the DRs [deficiency reports] in advance to assist in accelerating root cause, corrective action development.” In a statement, Boeing said that it continues to work with the Air Force to determine a path forward. “These are not safety of flight issues and we are confident in the unmatched capabilities of the KC-46 tanker aircraft," the company said. "To date we have completed more than 4,000 contacts during flights with F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B, C-17, KC-10 and A-10 aircraft. The refueling system has been tested extensively — we have a well-tested system that works.” The Air Force can accept tankers at its own discretion, with or without active deficiencies. However, both Boeing and the Air Force have worked under the assumption that the service will not do so until all category-1 issues have been worked out or downgraded to category-2, which signifies that a workaround has been put into place. The news of two more deficiencies is a blow to Boeing, which had been hoping to deliver the first tanker in October after finally coming to an agreement with the Air Force earlier this year on a proposed schedule. The KC-46 program has been notoriously above cost, and Boeing's fixed-price contract with the Air Force has forced it to pay out more than $3.4 billion to cover those overruns. It has also run years behind schedule: The company was initially slated to deliver the first 18 certified tankers by August 2017. Boeing now has until October 2018 to meet that deadline — called required assets available— but will almost surely miss it, as the Air Force does not have the resources to absorb 18 new tankers in a month. Over the past year, Boeing has been racing to resolve three additional category-1 deficiencies. Two involve the tanker's remote vision system, or RVS, a series of cameras and sensors that allow the boom operator to direct fuel into a receiver aircraft. Unlike legacy tanker operators, KC-46 boomers will be unable to look out a window in order to see the refueling process happen — making them entirely reliant on the RVS. However, certain lighting conditions make it difficult to see the receiver aircraft's receptacle, leading to incidents where the boom has scraped the plane being refueled. To fix the issue, Boeing has developed and tested a fix to the RVS' software. The Air Force is currently reviewing that data, and both RVS-related deficiencies are still in effect. The final issue involves the system centerline drogue system, which has a mechanical lock that sometimes inadvertently disconnects during a refueling. Boeing plans to create a software fix to ameliorate that problem, too, but it remains a category-1 deficiency. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/09/17/air-force-finds-new-kc-46-deficiencies-putting-planned-delivery-date-in-jeopardy

WASHINGTON — Congress loves buying littoral combat ships, but when it comes to the packages of sensors and systems that make the ships useful, lawmakers have been less enthusiastic. In the 2019 Defense Department funding bill that just left the conference committee, lawmakers have funded a 33rd, 34th and 35th littoral combat ship, three more than the 32-ship requirement set by the Navy. But when it comes to the mission modules destined to make each ship either a mine sweeper, submarine hunter or small surface combatant, that funding has been slashed. Appropriators cut all funding in 2019 for the anti-submarine warfare package, a variable-depth sonar and a multifunction towed array system that the Navy was aiming to have declared operational next year, citing only that the funding was “ahead of need." The National Defense Authorization Act had authorized about $7.4 million, still well below the $57.3 million requested by the Navy, citing delays in testing various components. Appropriators are also poised to half the requested funding for the surface warfare package and cut nearly $25.25 million from the minesweeping package, which equates to about a 21 percent cut from the requested and authorized $124.1 million. Nor are this year's cuts the only time appropriators have gone after the mission modules. A review of appropriations bills dating back to fiscal 2015 shows that appropriators have cut funding for mission modules every single year, and in 2018 took big hacks out of each funding line associated with the modules. The annual cutting spree has created a baffling cycle of inanity wherein Congress, unhappy with the development of the modules falling behind schedule, will cut funding and cause development to fall further behind schedule, according to a source familiar with the details of the impact of the cuts who spoke on background. All this while Congress continues to pump money into building ships without any of the mission packages having achieved what's known as initial operating capability, meaning the equipment is ready to deploy in some capacity. (The surface warfare version has IOC-ed some initial capabilities but is adding a Longbow Hellfire missile system that will be delayed with cuts, the source said.) That means that with 15 of the currently funded 32 ships already delivered to the fleet, not one of them can deploy with a fully capable package of sensors for which the ship was built in the first place — a situation that doesn't have a clear end state while the programs are caught in a sucking vortex of cuts and delays. “This is a prime example of program issues causing congressional cuts which lead to further delays, then more cuts in a vicious cycle," said Thomas Callender, a retired submarine officer and analyst with The Heritage Foundation. The Navy has been pursuing a strategy of buying 32 littoral combat ships and then 20 more lethal frigates now in development. Surface warfare boss Vice Adm. Richard Brown told Defense News in August that both the surface warfare package and the anti-submarine warfare package were on track to be ready in 2019, but that future is now in doubt, Callender said. “The appropriators' FY19 cuts of zeroing out ASW module and cuts to the MCM [mine countermeasures] module will likely delay IOC and operational testing,” Callender said. But the appropriators shouldn't take all the heat, he added. The development of the different modules have hit technical issues and are all drastically behind schedule. The minesweeping package, for example, was initially supposed to deliver in 2008, but now isn't slated to IOC until 2020, a date that will be further in doubt if Congress passes the appropriations bill as it left committee, sources agreed. “The technical development issues and subsequent delays with several modules, especially the ASW and MCM mission packages, contributed to congressional angst and some of these cuts,” Callender said. “Many of these cuts, including the cuts recommended from the House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee for FY19 were reductions in the number of initial modules purchased until they have successfully completed operational testing.” Both authorizers on the House and Senate Armed Services committees and the Appropriations committees have taken hacks at the funding to the modules, but ultimately the National Defense Authorization Act from the services committees is more of a guide for appropriators than a set of handcuffs. Appropriators can fund what they want to fund. A statement from the office of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said the committee works with the Navy on these programs and funds what is ready to be funded. “The Committee has worked with the Department of the Navy to understand the mission system test requirements — which have often changed due to variety of reasons — and focused on funding those requirements that are ready for production,” said Blair Taylor, Shelby's communications director. Merry-go-round Part of the reason the program is vulnerable to these cuts in a way that, for example, the Arleigh Burke destroyers are not to the same extent is because of the program's structure. The ships were to be purchased separately and designed to be highly versatile, switching out in a matter of days when pierside from anti-surface systems to countermine systems to anti-submarine systems as the missions changed. But a reorganization of the program in 2016 ordered by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson and led by then-head of the Naval Surface Force Pacific Adm. Thomas Rowden changed each of the ships to single-mission ships, with the first few ships slated to be surface warfare variants. But the warfare packages are still being developed under separate programs, leaving them as low-hanging fruit for cuts. “The separation of the mission modules from specific LCS hull procurement does leave them more vulnerable to these type of programmatic cuts,” Callender said. The whole issue is taking on increasing urgency as LCS builders Fincantieri in Marinette, Wisconsin, and Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama, begin pushing ships to the fleet by the handful each year. As of August, the Navy had 15 LCS vessels delivered, with 29 awarded and 11 in various stages of construction. But as the development modules has devolved into a merry-go-round, where cuts beget delays that beget more cuts, the fix in which this puts the Navy becomes more real by the day. The fleet needs the capabilities the LCS modules are supposed to deliver. For example, the Navy is slated to decommission its last Avenger-class minesweeper in the 2020s. This means the minesweeping package really can't suffer too many more delays without greatly increasing the threat posed to the Navy by cheap marine mines, leaving the fleet with only ad hoc solutions for combating them until the minesweeping package can be fielded in numbers. And while there are other ships in the fleet such as the DDGs that can do anti-submarine and anti-surface missions, it's the minesweeping package that has Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant with The FerryBridge Group, worried. “I'm concerned that there aren't enough MCM modules coming along fast enough, and I am concerned that there aren't enough LCS in the current plan (four on each coast) dedicated to the MCM mission,” he said. “I'd like to see the LCS plan re-evaluated and more of them devoted exclusively to MCM.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/09/18/congress-to-buy-3-more-lcs-than-the-navy-needs-but-gut-funding-for-sensors-that-makes-them-valuable

As Leaders set out at the Bratislava Summit two years ago, the Union's objective in this area is to do everything necessary to support Member States in ensuring internal security and fighting terrorism. The European Union must help protect the public, safeguard the Schengen area and respond intelligently to a changing security environment where some threats are hybrid in nature, and where the line between internal and external security is sometimes blurred. Building on the real progress made in recent years to strengthen our collective security, we must think in more operational terms and ensure the full and effective implementation of our previous conclusions, including on cybersecurity (October 2017, June 2018) and on strengthening resilience to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear-related risks, also in light of the Salisbury attack (March and June 2018). Leaders should focus on where EU efforts can add immediate value to national ones and on ways to reinforce Europe's long-term response to emerging and new threats, as part of the new Strategic Agenda for the Union to be adopted at the June 2019 European Council. Upgrading police and judicial cooperation Strengthening border security Resilience in cyberspace Crisis response capability Full article: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/36409/leaders-agenda-note-on-internal-security.pdf

By: Aaron Mehta NATIONAL HARBOR, Md – Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, today unveiled a new extended-range drone that it claims can hit previously unattainable distances for small unmanned systems. The company's Integrator Extended Range design has a 200-nautical mile radius with 10 hours on station, or 300 miles with six hours on station, according to company officials. The 145-pound system was unveiled at the annual Air Force Association conference. Those ranges improve on current capabilities for unmanned systems of that size, which traditionally have been limited to around 50-70 miles distance and line-of-sight tethering. The increased distance and time comes from advances in satcom technology that have made it possible to shrink down the needed components to useable size. Esina Alic, Insitu CEO, made it clear the company is targeting the Integrator-ER for the Air Force, saying bluntly during her presentation, “Air Force customer, we have heard you. We are giving you a theater range platform, at a fraction of cost, at a fraction of a footprint compared to today's ISR asset in the field.” Specifically, Alic and Don Williamson, vice president and general manager for defense with the company, positioned the system as giving the Air Force an option to stop using high end systems for surveillance missions. Buying a lower-cost system like the Integrator would allow higher-capability MALE systems, like the MQ-9, to focus on higher-stakes opportunities or strike missions, while also allowing those systems to pick up missions currently tasked to top-end fighter jets. “No one in the air force has specifically evaluated this capability,” Williamson said. “One of the purposes of being able to show here is, to be able to reveal this with our Air Force customer. We have a number of engagements coming up over the next couple of days.” Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2018/09/17/insitu-unveils-new-integrator-extended-range-unmanned-system

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Over the course of her 40-year career with the U.S. Air Force, Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski has worn many hats, going from the manager of the service's airborne laser program to its chief buyer of space technology to — finally — the head of Air Force Materiel Command. Through it all she was a proud and self-described nerd: an avid science and technology proponent happy to talk about anything from trends in military satellites to how the Air Force was tackling the problem of hypoxia. Pawlikowski officially retired from the Air Force in early September and is now transitioning to a career in the private sector, having already accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors. She spoke with Defense News on Sept. 10 about some of AFMC's biggest prospective challenges. As you look at Air Force Materiel Command now, what advice would you give your successor? The first thing is to just remember — and I know everybody says this — but there are just amazing airmen at AFMC, and you have to really trust them to get the job done. They care so much about what we do that that makes the job easy. But I think my advice is you have to recognize just how massive the responsibility is. There's really nothing that goes on in the Air Force that Air Force Materiel Command isn't involved with in some way. And I know I did not have an appreciation for that when I first took command. I was obviously very much aware of the technology side of things and the acquisition side of things, but everything from the Civil Engineering Center that's responsible for all of the milcon projects in the Air Force to the services agency which runs things like all of the dining facilities. It's a huge job with a wide breadth of impact. All of us come into these jobs with our background in one particular area, and that's our area where you have a tendency to migrate to, but you have to recognize that AFMC has such vast responsibilities that you have to really make sure that you don't get yourself involved in one area that you don't have the time to really take on and cover everything that needs to be done. When I look at where the Air Force is and the future of the Air Force, there's just tremendous opportunities for AFMC to be helping the Air Force, and in many cases leading the Air Force in these transformations that we're trying to do. The whole focus on multidomain for Air Force, for example: AFMC has to play a critical role in that as we cut across all of the different aspects of what the Air Force does. The drive to promote and encourage more innovation and what I consider creativity among our airmen — that is something that AFMC has got to help to facilitate. Because there is such opportunities to make sure that we're successful in doing that, but also doing no harm. What role do you see AFMC having in multidomain? I think the place that really hits the most is in the Life Cycle Management Center. The Life Cycle Management Center is really structured to be aligned under the program executive officers, and the program executive officers are all aligned by platforms. We've got fighter, bomber, mobility, tanker. So within the Life Cycle Management Center, those things don't come together until you're above the PEO. So the challenge and opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center is to be able to still deliver on all those individual products, but [also] to be able to provide the connectivity between those different programs so that we get the interoperability, the connectiveness between the different platforms while they are in development, not after it happens and then we try to figure out how we're going to put them together. But we have neither really thought about and structured ourselves to do it that way. We've always been structured as the platform as the center of attention. So I think there is a huge opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center to be the key facilitator for establishing that connectivity, but that's going to take a lot of work, and to a degree some cultural change — and maybe even some change in the way the Air Force programs and budgets [its] dollars. What specifically could the Life Cycle Management Center do to become that connective tissue between programs? They're going to have to be the ones that — using, maybe some oldspeak — establish the standards, establish the interfaces, establish the architecture, establish the data structure that is going to enable us to connect things. They have to, to a degree, be the Microsoft and the Apple when it comes to things being able to just connect and work. The Air Force recently started doing some of the depot maintenance work on its legacy E-8C JSTARS fleet after a couple of problems with the Northrop Grumman depot, which has been struggling with quality control issues. How is the work currently divided? Right now we're in the crawl phase when it comes to the organic side of things. We have inducted, as you know, one airplane down at Warner Robins [Air Force Base]. That happened just before I left. My last day on active duty was the 9th of August, so I haven't had an update on the progress ... but what we're trying to do is to make sure that we have other options other than just the one facility to be able to maintain these aircraft. Based on the latest defense authorization for 2019, there's a requirement in there that we keep these, so we need to be able to have the capacity to bring them in. And what we've found through the work with Northrop was that, as hard they were trying, we just couldn't seem to get over the hump of being able to consistently deliver them in a timely manner. And we just needed to have some other options. So what we've done at Robins is to bring in one that doesn't require a lot of the major work, but is something we believe that the Robins workforce can do. We were kind of pleasantly surprised when we first started to look at this, in the fact that — we kind of looked across the workforce to see how much experience we have on JSTARS, and not an insignificant number of our civilian workforce down there whose part-time job is the Air National Guard on the other side of the runway. So we actually have a fair amount of knowledge of the airplane right down there on the Air Force base. So what I see happening in the future, as the Air Force works through what we're going to do to maintain those planes as we move forward on Air Battle Management, is going to be probably a split between the two. I don't think you're ever going to see the Air Force completely — well, never say never — but I would be surprised if, in the near future, that the Air Force would completely walk away from the Northrop facility because there is tooling and things like that that the Air Force just doesn't have, at least right now, at Robins. You recently said in another interview that the light-attack aircraft program of record could be as small as 20 planes. Could you explain why the Air Force is considering such a small buy? I would see a model there where we would buy 20 or so per year, and then when they got to the point where they were not sustainable anymore — just like your telephone or microwave (who gets a microwave repaired these days?) — we would not invest in a huge organic [maintenance] capability. I don't want to be in the position with light attack that I am with JSTARS. And so what my point was is that we wouldn't buy massive numbers of these in a big chunk. We would buy them on a regular basis and then when they became unsupportable because of their age, we wouldn't try to maintain them. We would either sell them or put them in the boneyard — probably sell them since there will probably be a good market for them. But that was my point. The number of 20, when I was talking about it, had more to do with how many we might buy in a given year as opposed to the total number. The discussion is still out there as to how many light-attack versus high-performance aircraft [you need] because there's only so much money, right? The money we spend on light attack may buy more airplanes, but you have to look at capability and what capability we need. So how many we totally actually buy. I leave that up to folks like [Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [Dave] Goldfein and [Air Combat Command head] Gen. [Mike] Holmes, who are the ones who need to make that assessment of what airplanes they need to perform the mission. My point only was that we shouldn't go out and buy 300 of these in one year and then spend 25, 30 years trying to maintain old airplanes. The Air Force recently has been using 3D printing to solve a lot of problems it's been having with spare parts for older airframes, like printing a toilet seat cover for the C-5 Galaxy, which would have taken more than $10,000 to otherwise replicate. But are there still barriers to using 3D printing for certain applications where you think it would be useful? I do believe that you will see more and more 3D printing done, particularly for some of these older airplanes, as we have to figure out how to reverse engineer parts in order to keep them flying. The challenges that we've found as we've gone forward on this is, first of all, we have to make sure that we don't get wrapped up in what I call the hype of 3D printing. 3D printing can be a tremendous tool, but it's not for everything. Certain materials are harder to 3D print than others, and so we're going to need some more science to figure out how to 3D print certain kinds of metals, but what I think we have found and the tremendous work that both the Air Force Research Lab and the Life Cycle Management Center have been doing is, first, the Air Force Research Lab is making sure that we understand the science behind it. Because in 3D printing in some cases you're using these powders that are created from metals. And those powders have certain characteristics. And it's just like when we order a part, we have to make sure we know how to order the materials for 3D printing and, if you will, the specs, the standards for 3D printing that will enable us to consistently get the same thing. So there's a lot of hard work that needs to be done to make 3D printing something that we do on a daily basis. And that's what Air Force Materiel Command has focused on. So what's next for you? I see you've accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors. My objective is to first and foremost to be able to spend more time with my family, which has been a challenge for me over the years, as these jobs are not easy. As my dad used to say: “You have a 24/7 job.” I don't know if he realized how true that is, especially as you get more senior in rank. I plan to probably get involved in a couple other boards and do some advising and consulting. I still consider myself part of what I call the American Geek Squad. I'm a member of the National Academy of Engineering. So I will hopefully get an opportunity to continue to contribute in different forms where I can advise as opposed to the person that's doing everything. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2018/09/12/newly-retired-head-of-air-force-materiel-command-talks-about-the-orgs-future-challenges

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force's program executive office for battle management has been redesignated PEO Digital, but it's more than a name change, the service's top acquisition executive told Defense News. Instead, it's about taking one of the Air Force's most diverse acquisition portfolios — covering everything from JSTARS ground-surveillance planes to certain communications gear — and transforming it into the headquarters of agile software development as the service moves forward with evermore sophisticated information technology programs, said Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics. In at least the beginning, it will look much like the service's program office for buying services. “It won't do all of the software development for the Air Force. There's no way it could,” Roper said in a Sept. 7 interview. But the hope is that it will be able to manage agile software development for some of the Air Force's most tricky programs, while at the same time providing expertise and software development tools to the rest of the program offices. “As programs shift to agile development, where they're pushing code out every month, where they are working directly with the user, where they are measuring their output using metrics that tell them whether it's good code or bad code, PEO Digital will provide Air Force standards for doing it and a playbook for making it work,” Roper said. FUll article: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2018/09/17/air-force-transforms-existing-program-office-into-its-new-software-development-hub

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. surface Navy is moving rapidly toward buying a new large surface ship that will replace the aging cruisers, a ship that Navy leaders and experts say will need to be spacious to accommodate future upgrades and weapon systems. The office of the Chief of Naval Operations Director of Surface Warfare, or OPNAV N96, has convened a “large surface combatant requirements evaluation team” to figure out what the Navy's next large ship will look like and what it will need to do. The goal, according to the N96 head Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, will be to buy the first cruiser replacement in 2023 or 2024. The acquisition process should kick off formally next year once a capabilities development document is completed, but a few main factors are driving the size requirement, Boxall said. The fleet is pushing towards designs that can easily be upgraded without a major overhaul. To do that, the Navy thinks its going to need a lot of extra power for more energy-intensive weapons in the future, such as electromagnetic rail guns and laser weapons. “You need something that can host the [size, weight, power and cooling], so it's probably going to be a little bigger," Boxall said. "Flexibility and adaptability, the ability to upgrade quickly, is going to be a key requirement capability. It's got to have room to grow. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/09/17/the-us-navy-is-going-to-need-a-bigger-boat-and-its-getting-ready-to-buy-one

By: Pierre Tran PARIS — France on Sept. 5 ordered from Arquus a 1,200-strong batch of VT4 Mk2 light tactical vehicles for the French armed forces, the Direction Générale de l'Armement procurement office said. That is the second batch of VT4 four-wheel drive cars ordered by the DGA, which placed an initial order for 1,000 Mk1 units in December 2016. The planned total fleet of VT4 vehicles is 4,380 units, based on a modified version of the Ford Explorer car, for the Air Force, Army, Navy and support services, a DGA spokesman said Sept. 17. The first of a batch of 500 units are due for delivery this year, with a second 500-strong batch to be shipped in 2019, he added. A first shipment of the VT4 will go to the Army, the DGA said in a Sept. 6 statement. “To effect this, the DGA put in a place a procedure to execute the program in the most timely manner,” the procurement office said. This swift delivery is part of the government's drive to transform the DGA in acquiring equipment, the office added. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/09/17/arquus-to-adapt-additional-1200-unarmored-vehicles-for-french-military-use