Nouvelles

John M. Donnelly The Pentagon will soon have received about $2.3 billion in the last nine years — money the military never requested — for a special fund intended to help replace earmarks after Congress banned them, our analysis shows. Buried deep inside the $674.4 billion Defense spending measure for fiscal 2019 that the Senate is expected to vote on this week is a chart with one line showing a $250 million appropriation for the Defense Rapid Innovation Fund, the latest installment of sizable funding for a largely unknown program that quietly disburses scores of contracts every year. To supporters, the fund is a way to bankroll innovative systems that the military may not yet know it needs. To critics, the fund is just earmarking by another name. The kinds of systems that net contracts from the innovation fund run the gamut. In fiscal 2016, they included programs to demonstrate artificial intelligence systems for aerial drones, anti-lock brakes for Humvees and underwater communications systems for undersea drones. The systems may be technologies for which the military services have not yet established a requirement because they may not know what is technically possible. It is not clear how many of the systems actually become operational. The defense fund's eclipsing of the $2 billion mark comes as debate heats up in Washington over whether to revive earmarks. And the special account highlights key elements of that debate. Talk of earmarks 2.0 Earmarks have generally been defined as parochial spending, directed by lawmakers and received by people who have not competed for it. In 2011, after earmarks were tied to several scandals and spending projects seen as excess, Congress barred them — or at least a narrow definition of them, critics contend, noting that, among other loopholes, committees could still add money for parochial projects without spelling out who supports them. President Donald Trump suggested earlier this year that a return of earmarks, which were often used in horsetrading for votes, might be beneficial. Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, has suggested he would aim to bring back earmarks if his party takes control of the House next year. The senior Democrat on Senate Appropriations, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, has also supported a comeback for the practice. Republican leaders are less vocal right now, but many of them also support a return to earmarks. “I don't doubt that the next organizing conference for the next Congress will probably wrestle with this issue,” outgoing House Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters earlier this month. Account quietly amasses funds The Defense Rapid Innovation Fund was launched in 2010 (first as the Rapid Innovation Program) in the fiscal 2011 defense authorization law. It was a way to capture what proponents called the innovative spirit of programs called earmarks that were clearly about to be banned. Unlike earmarks, the defense fund's money would be competitively awarded by the Pentagon, not directed by Congress, supporters of the idea pointed out. Democrat Norm Dicks, then a senior Defense appropriator, and other advocates of the program described it at the time as a way to capture the innovation among smaller companies, including many who had received earmarks. “We have not always had an adequate way of bringing these smaller firms and their innovation into the defense pipeline,” Dicks said in 2010. Each year since its creation, the fund has received another installment of funds, never less than $175 million or more than $439 million. The program has awarded several hundred contracts, averaging about $2 million each, mostly for small businesses with technologies that were relatively mature and that could address some military need, according to a fiscal 2017 Pentagon summary of the program's results. Full article: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/obscure-pentagon-fund-nets-2-billion

By: Mark Pomerleau In its first formal cyber strategy document in three years, the Department of Defense said it would focus its cyber efforts on China and Russia and use the Pentagon's cyber capabilities to collect intelligence as well as to prepare for future conflicts. According to an unclassified summary and fact sheet released Sept. 18, the documents lay out a vision for addressing cyber threats and addresses the priorities of the department's National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, which focused on a new era of strategic great power competition. “The United States cannot afford inaction,” the summary reads. It notes that China and Russia are conducting persistent campaigns in cyberspace that pose long term risk. The documents also say that China is eroding the U.S. military's ability to overmatch opponents and that Russia is using cyber-enabled information operations to influence the U.S. population and challenge democratic processes. The DoD's strategy comes on the heels of other major movements in cyberspace from the department. These include the elevation of U.S. Cyber Command to a full unified combatant command — which affords new and exquisite authorities — the full staffing of Cyber Command's cyber teams, an update to DoD's cyber doctrine and new authorities delegating certain responsibilities from the president to DoD to conduct cyber operations abroad. The summary's lists five objectives for DoD's cyberspace strategy: - Ensuring the joint force can achieve its missions in a contested cyberspace environment; - Strengthening the joint force by conducting cyberspace operations that enhance U.S. military advantages; - Defending U.S. critical infrastructure from malicious cyber activity that alone, or as part of a campaign, could cause a significant cyber incident; - Securing DoD information and systems against malicious cyber activity, including DoD information on non-DoD-owned networks; and - Expanding DoD cyber cooperation with interagency, industry, and international partners. The strategy also describes the need to remain consistently engaged with this persistent adversary and to “defend forward” as a means of disrupting or halting malicious cyber activity at its source, including activity that falls below the level of armed conflict. While academics have criticized the U.S. response to Russian election interference, the strategy notes that the United States tends to view conflicts through the binary lens of war or peace while competitors such as Russia see themselves constantly engaged in a state of war. U.S. Cyber Command's new leader is taking a different tact. “We've got to act forward outside of our boundaries, something that we do very, very well at Cyber Command in terms of getting into our adversary's networks. That's this idea of persistent engagement, the idea that the adversary never rests, so why would we ever rest,” Gen. Paul Nakasone said during an August dinner hosted by the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. Nakasone also has described the notion of defending forward as enabling forces to act outside the boundaries of the U.S. to understand what adversaries are doing in order to better defend against them. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2018/09/19/department-of-defense-unveils-new-cyber-strategy

By: Ryan Hazlett With unmanned systems becoming ever more ubiquitous on the battlefield, the question of where unmanned systems and accompanying technologies, such as autonomy, are headed is in the limelight. First, to better understand the future direction of the unmanned field, it is instructive to note some important trends. The number of uses for unmanned systems on the battlefield has increased significantly in the post-9/11 conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the U.S. Army's Shadow® Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) program having logged nearly 1 million flight hours in those areas of operation. The proliferation and commoditization of UAS capabilities is a global phenomenon, as demonstrated by both the widespread possession of UAS hardware as well as the ability to indigenously produce at least rudimentary unmanned systems. Growth of the nascent commercial unmanned systems market has added to this trend, as has the government's emphasis on a greater use of commercial off-the-shelf solutions. But while commoditization has occurred at the platform level — particularly among smaller airborne vehicles — overcoming the challenges of adversaries employing anti-access area-denial (A2AD) military strategies requires far more capable solutions than simply having hordes of cheap drones. In this environment, how will U.S. and allied forces retain their advantage? Critical capabilities and technologies are necessary. These include the ability to dynamically swarm, conduct automatic target recognition, possess on-board autonomy and artificial intelligence, as well as have interoperable communications capabilities. First, future platforms — manned or unmanned — will increasingly need better collaboration between the sensors and payloads they carry and with allied forces. This growing level of collaboration and autonomy is already happening. Driven by advances in onboard computing power, as well as smaller and less power-intensive sensors and advanced algorithms, tomorrow's unmanned systems will be able to better communicate among themselves and make their own decisions on basic functions, such as navigation, to enable dynamic swarming or to identify areas of interest during intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Next, systems that can seamlessly operate and communicate with other military platforms across domains will be the most successful. Gone are the days when largely mission-specific platforms dominated the force composition. With platforms needing to be highly capable to meet A2AD threats, a mission-specific approach will simply be unaffordable. Instead, increasingly we see platforms that can act as highly capable but also flexible “trucks” that can easily swap payloads designed for specific missions, while the overall platform serves many needs. Multi-domain abilities for conducting command and control (C2) and other tasks will also be vital as technologies move from remote-control type operations to more of a “man monitoring the loop” concept. Technological progress in providing secure communications and a level of onboard artificial intelligence are necessary enablers, as will be data fusion technologies. Initial versions of these multi-domain C2 solutions for unmanned systems are already here. For example, the U.S. Army has years of experience operating the Universal Ground Control Station and One System Remote Video Terminal that allow soldiers in tactical units to access overhead sensor video from unmanned aircraft. Next-generation, multi-domain control and collaboration technologies to take the concept to a new level are mature, allowing a single user to simultaneously operate multiple vehicles and sensors, including the ability to control numerous types of aircraft and other multi-domain unmanned systems from different manufacturers. In addition, these systems are ready to incorporate the best available software applications as “plug-ins” to an open architecture. Industry is also investing in additional technology to ensure that tomorrow's unmanned systems continue to meet U.S. and allied needs. Among them are advanced power generation, systems with improved maneuverability, and vehicles designed to deploy with lighter support and operational footprints. Done smartly, the application of technologies such as autonomy can be better integrated into unmanned systems to enable improved navigation, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as other tasks, while leaving a man in the loop for the use of weapons. Moreover, defense users can rightly leverage the commercial sector's work on areas such as self-driving cars and unmanned taxis that are at the forefront of artificial intelligence for navigation. But while the military can leverage such commercial developments, there are, and will remain, cyber hardening, survivability and other specific requirements that are unique to the defense marketplace and require experienced industrial partners with deep knowledge of national security needs. The ongoing move away from only long-term programs of record to the embrace of the “buy, try, and decide” model, as well as greater uses of funded prototyping, is helping to fast-track many of these promising new technologies. Companies can now match their internal research and development funding to move that innovation along and ensure the United States and its allies remain at the forefront of unmanned technologies. Ryan Hazlett is senior vice president at Textron Systems. https://www.c4isrnet.com/thought-leadership/2018/09/19/the-new-critical-capabilities-for-unmanned-systems

Lee Hudson and Steve Trimble | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland—The U.S. Air Force still is aiming to release the final solicitation for light attack aircraft in December and continues to discuss the findings of its recent light attack experiment with international ... Full article: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/usaf-targets-light-attack-final-rfp-december

Par Alain Barluet Si les coups de boutoir de Donald Trump contre l'Otan ont provoqué une prise de conscience importante, les Européens ne parviennent toujours pas à structurer un projet commun. Certains chiffres parlent d'eux-mêmes: moins de la moitié des chars en service dans les armées de l'UE sont de conception européenne et 20 % seulement pour l'artillerie. La propension limitée des Européens à «acheter européen» pour doter leurs forces, la grande disparité des matériels qu'ils utilisent (60 types d'équipements terrestres différents dans l'Union, contre 20 aux États-Unis) illustrent le chemin qui reste à parcourir sur le chemin d'une Europe de la défense. Et encore ne s'agit-il là que du domaine capacitaire. Pourtant, depuis l'an dernier, les conditions d'une prise de conscience ont progressé. Les coups de boutoir du président américain contre l'Otan, qu'il juge «obsolète», et les Européens, qu'il considère comme trop peu investis dans leur défense, ont provoqué une onde de choc de ce côté-ci de l'Atlantique. Un certain nombre de pays, dont la France, ont augmenté leur budget de ... Article complet: http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2018/09/19/01003-20180919ARTFIG00267-l-europe-de-la-defense-n-avance-qu-a-petits-pas.php

M.C. avec AFP Une réponse au « comportement agressif » de la Russie. La Pologne est prête à débourser au moins deux milliards de dollars pour l'implantation d'une base militaire américaine sur son sol, une offre que le président Donald Trump a affirmé étudier « très sérieusement ». Le président Andrzej Duda « nous a offert beaucoup plus que deux milliards de dollars » pour l'installation d'une base permanente dans son pays, a indiqué Donald Trump lors d'une conférence de presse commune à la Maison Blanche avec son homologue polonais. « Nous étudions cela très sérieusement », avait-il fait savoir plus tôt dans le Bureau ovale avant leur entretien. Il a précisé que les Etats-Unis examinaient cette requête polonaise « d'un point de vue, en premier lieu, de protection militaire pour les deux pays et, aussi, de coût ». Dans la soirée, la Maison Blanche a indiqué dans un communiqué que « les Etats-Unis s'engagent à explorer les options pour un rôle plus important de l'armée américaine en Pologne, et nous intensifierons nos consultations pour déterminer la faisabilité du concept ». « Les résultats de ces efforts contribueront à la défense non seulement de l'Europe centrale et orientale mais aussi de l'Alliance tout entière », a poursuivi l'exécutif américain en référence à l'Otan dont fait partie la Pologne. « Fort Trump » Lors de leur conférence de presse commune, le président polonais a appelé Donald Trump à « déployer plus de soldats américains en Pologne ». « J'espère que vous prendrez la décision de déployer plus d'unités et d'équipement (...). J'aimerais voir une base américaine permanente en Pologne », a-t-il ajouté, suggérant de l'appeler « Fort Trump ». Le ministre américain de la Défense Jim Mattis a salué plus tard les efforts de la Pologne pour augmenter son budget militaire, tout en insistant sur le fait qu'aucune décision n'avait été prise concernant une éventuelle base américaine sur son territoire. « Les questions sont nombreuses », a-t-il souligné auprès de journalistes au Pentagone. « Comme vous le savez, il ne s'agit pas seulement d'une base. Il s'agit de zones d'entraînement, il s'agit d'infrastructures de maintenance au sein de la base, toutes ces choses, ce sont beaucoup de détails que nous devons étudier avec les Polonais », a-t-il expliqué. « Donc aucune décision n'a été prise, nous l'étudions et nous travaillons ensemble ». Aggraver les tensions entre l'Occident et la Russie Aux côtés de Donald Trump, Andrzej Duda a également longuement insisté sur « le comportement agressif » de la Russie, évoquant notamment la situation en Géorgie voisine ou en Crimée qui font partie de la « violation permanente du droit international » par Moscou. « Il y a toute une panoplie d'arguments en faveur du fait que la présence des forces armées des Etats-Unis dans cette région est absolument justifiée », a poursuivi Andrzej Duda. « Je suis convaincu qu'il n'y a pas de méthode plus efficace pour empêcher une guerre que de montrer que nous sommes prêts à repousser une attaque à tout moment », a-t-il affirmé. Des propos appuyés par le milliardaire new-yorkais : « Il y a beaucoup d'agressivité dans cette situation. La Russie a agi de manière agressive. Ils respectent la force. (...) Et nous avons la plus grande force au monde, surtout en ce moment ». Une telle initiative, si elle se concrétisait, pourrait cependant créer des crispations au sein de l'Otan, dont la Pologne est membre, mais aussi aggraver encore un peu plus les vives tensions entre l'Occident et la Russie. https://www.20minutes.fr/monde/2338979-20180919-pologne-prete-payer-2-milliards-dollars-base-americaine-pourrait-appeler-fort-trump

By: Leo Shane III and Joe Gould WASHINGTON — With the fiscal year winding down, Senate lawmakers on Tuesday advanced a multi-agency appropriations deal that would prevent a government shutdown and give the Defense Department its full-year budget on schedule for the first time in a decade. The measure, which provides for more than $606 billion in base defense spending and nearly $68 billion more in overseas contingency funds, is in line with White House requests and spending targets outlined in the annual defense authorization bill approved earlier this summer. “After subjecting America's all-volunteer armed forces to years of belt tightening, this legislation will build on our recent progress in rebuilding the readiness of our military and investing more in the men and women who wear the uniform,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said before the Senate vote. The funding total — approved by a 93-7 vote — amounts to an increase of more than 3 percent for military spending in fiscal 2019, but as important as the boost is the timing of the measure. In recent years, Congress has struggled to pass any appropriations measures before the start of the new fiscal year, relying instead on a series of budget extensions to avoid partial government shutdowns. That has infuriated Pentagon leaders, who have said the fractured appropriations process prevents them from keeping equipment purchases and new program starts on time. If the House finalizes the appropriations measure next week and President Donald Trump signs it into law in the following week (all parties involved have already signaled they expect to do so ), it will mark the first time since 2008 that Congress and the White House have passed their spending plans on time. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., called that “a major victory” for Congress and the military. The measure funds a 2.6 percent pay raise for troops starting next January and a boost in military end strength of 16,400 spread across the active-duty and reserve forces. Operation and maintenance spending totals $243.2 billion of the defense total, and research and development efforts another $96.1 billion. Defense health and military family programs would receive $34.4 billion. The appropriations fund 13 new Navy ships ― including three DDG-51 guided missile destroyers and two Virginia-class submarines ― 93 F-35 aircraft, 58 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, 66 AH-64 Apache helicopters, 13 V-22 aircraft, and $1.5 billion for the upgrade of 135 Abrams tanks. The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account would also see a $1.3 billion boost from the appropriations plan. In order to avoid political fights over non-defense spending levels, lawmakers agreed to package the military budget bill with the full-year funding for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education. In addition, the legislation contains a budget extension for a handful of agency budgets lawmakers have not yet finished negotiating. The move will prevent a government shutdown at the end of the month, when the fiscal year ends. Several senators lamented before the vote that all of the appropriations bills have not yet been finalized, but for the first time in years, defense advocates aren't among those complaining. In addition to the full Defense Department appropriations plan, lawmakers last week finalized a spending plan for military construction projects and the Department of Veterans Affairs, covering nearly all aspects of national defense and military personnel spending. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018/09/18/as-deadline-approaches-senate-advances-674-billion-defense-budget-bill

By: Daniel Cebul NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.— As the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategyhave made clear, space is set to become a crucial war fighting domain, as nearly every operation the military conducts relies on space assets. So when the leaders of the Air Force's Global Strike Command, Space Command, commander in Europe and Africa and special operations head all shared a stage at the Air Force Associations annual conference to discuss operations, its no surprise they chose to focus on how the service plans to leverage space assets to project power in the 21st century. One reason space is so important, not just to the Air Force, but all military services, is that space assets enable multidomain operations that are becoming the norm in the modern warfare. Citing the Air Force's successful strikes against Assad-regime chemical weapons manufacturing sites in Syria in April, Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa, explained the mission was successful because “we had well-vetted and thorough multidomain operations.” Another key reason the Air Force is doubling down on space is because the outcome of a conflict with a near-peer will largely depend on winning the battle in space. “If deterrence fails I am convinced ... if we are up against a peer or near-peer we are going to have to fight for space superiority,” said Gen. John Raymond, commander of Air Force Space Command. “As the National Defense Strategy talks about, that's going to require capability from multiple domains to come forward,” he added. Raymond noted the need to control assets in space was prioritized in the National Security Strategy, which talks about “unfettered access to and freedom to maneuver in space as a vital national interest. That's significant, it wasn't in the last National Security Strategy.” And unlike in previous endeavors beyond Earth's atmosphere, the U.S. is no longer going it alone. Looking at the spectrum of operations “from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief on one end to kinetic on the other end, there is nothing that isn't done without multidomain operations or integration of air, space and cyber together, and there is nothing we do not do without our allies," Raymond said. "So by definition multidomain, [and command and control] has to be coalition friendly.” Considering the need for U.S. partners in space and how the space environment has evolved, Raymond explained, "we haven't needed to have partners in space before. It was a benign domain.... That is not the case today and we are working really hard to develop those partnerships that we enjoy in all other domains than space.” But projecting power from space requires work to be done on terra firma by the U.S. and its allies. Gen. Timothy Ray, commander of U.S. Air Force global strike command, explained “The ability to improve much faster at our bases and our power projection platforms absolutely has to be an integrated conversation. We talk about integrating air space and cyber we fundamentally have to master the integration of our bases.” https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/digital-show-daily/2018/09/18/how-the-air-force-plans-to-use-space-to-project-power-in-the-21st-century-2

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. “We're looking at airframes of the future that will have common cockpits, advanced propulsion systems, (and) signature management," Miller said. The goal “really is understanding (how) to modify or build an airplane that allows us to operate through that threat environment." AFA: Air Mobility Command's tankers and transports would be big, slow targets in a major war, but without them, most of the US military can't move. The imperative to fly fuel, supplies, and troops in the face of high-tech threats – from anti-aircraft missiles to cyber attack – is forcing AMC to change its approach to aircraft upgrades, communications networks, and what they ask airmen to think about every day, its new commander told reporters here this morning. AMC wants to stimulate innovative thinking by all its people, Gen. Maryanne Miller said, but “not so much on innovation for innovation's sake” – they have to be “much more focused.” On what? “It needs to be on our resilient and agile response,” she said, “being able to operate in that contested, degraded, or operationally challenged threat environment.” There are a lot of buzzwords in that sentence, but they add up to a major change in mindset for strategic transport and logistics. While roadside bombs have ravaged ground convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq, US pilots and sailors can usually assume that they'll arrive alive. Until last year, the joint Transportation Command – overseeing Air Mobility Command, Military Sealift Command, and the Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command – didn't even factor into its war plans that an enemy might shoot down planes or sink ships. But Air Mobility Command is already under constant attack in cyberspace, and advanced adversaries such as Russia, China, or even Iran have long-range missiles to challenge US dominance of the air and sea – what's known as an Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy. Transportation Command is now well into a congressionally-directed Mobility Capabilities & Requirements Study (MCRS) that “is looking at all the things that you're describing,” Miller said when I asked about such factors. TRANSCOM is working with the Pentagon's independent office of Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation (CAPE) and the Air Force, she said, with AMC providing extensive data on how it's operated over the years. Due out “later this fall,” she said, the study will look at the evolving threats and make recommendations on how many tankers and transports AMC needs, and of what kinds. Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/how-air-force-tankers-transports-can-survive-in-high-tech-war