Nouvelles

Lee Hudson The U.S. Navy has expedited its component workshare agreement with an Air Force aviation depot because of coronavirus-related workforce shortages. Fleet Readiness Center East (FRCE) located in North Carolina was initially scheduled to begin working on a Boeing F-18 cabin safety valve later this year while the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex's test chamber was closed for scheduled maintenance. But the time line was accelerated when Tinker AFB in Oklahoma had a significant number of workers unavailable due to COVID-19 risk mitigation efforts. The cabin safety valve is an integral part of the aircraft's environmental control system, Mary Linton, an aerospace engineer on the Gas Turbine Compressor-Pneumatics Fleet Support Team at FRCE, said in an April 27 statement. The valve is a component on both legacy F/A-18 Hornets and newer Super Hornets that acts as a backup to maintain cabin pressure above 23,000 ft. The part also serves as a supplement to the cabin air pressure regulator when the aircraft is in a rapid dive. “The original intent of bringing this workload to FRCE was to support Tinker Air Force Base through a major support equipment rework effort,” Linton said. “All of the great effort that went into establishing this capability proved even more critical to maintaining the readiness of the F-18 fleet as we navigate through the COVID-19 crisis.” The FRCE team was prepared to begin repairing, checking and testing the cabin safety valves in May, beginning with 20 per month before getting to a monthly rate of 40 by July, said John Miller, a planner and estimator with the Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Logistics department at FRCE. To date, FRCE has completed 18 of the 40 units inducted so far, with plans to funnel 10 more into the pipeline. Once those first units are completed, the team must wait for additional valves to maintain the workflow. “The availability of components is still in flux due to COVID-19 and other factors, but the transition should move smoothly,” Miller said. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/covid-19-forces-usn-expedite-usaf-workshare-agreement

Les industriels de la défense, qui sont venus défendre l'idée d'un plan de relance devant les parlementaires le 23 avril dernier, évoquent plusieurs pistes possibles : maintien de la loi de programmation militaire a minima, nouvelles commandes, plan pour l'innovation et implication de la Commission européenne. « Pour la LPM (loi de programmation militaire), nous souhaitons son maintien et que des idées soient données pour ajuster ces programmes dans le but d'alimenter notre industrie de défense, souligne Eric Trappier, président du GIFAS. Il faut être capable de relancer notre économie sinon il y a un risque pour l'emploi et l'activité. Je suis très attaché à l'emploi dans les territoires. Avant de parler de relocalisation, il faut rappeler que l'industrie de défense se situe déjà en France ». La Tribune du 27 avril 2020

Par Le groupe de réflexions Mars* Dans le but de permettre à la base industrielle et technologique de défense de contribuer à la sortie de crise et aux plans de relance français et européen, le groupe de réflexions Mars* souhaite partager, dans une série de tribunes, les réflexions qu'il mène notamment autour des sujets de la souveraineté et de l'autonomie, du sens donné à l'Europe de la défense et la place réservée à la défense dans un "plan Marshall" européen, des enjeux macroéconomiques et des enjeux industriels et d'innovation dans la défense. L'objectif du groupe de réflexions Mars est de trouver des solutions pour sécuriser les budgets de défense à court et à moyen terme. Qui dit crise économique dit plan de relance. La ministre des armées souhaite utiliser à cet effet l'investissement de défense (Titre 5), qui représente 80% de l'investissement de l'État. En réponse, les industriels du secteur proposent de sécuriser, voire d'accélérer la livraison des programmes d'armement prévus dans la loi de programmation militaire en cours. Est-ce pertinent ? L'industrie de défense est une industrie de souveraineté, au sens le plus fort du terme, à savoir que sans elle, il n'y a plus d'indépendance nationale, que la nation dépend de ses alliés pour sa défense. C'est le cœur des compétences régaliennes et la légitimité intrinsèque de l'État. Une protection n'est jamais gratuite. La sécurité a un coût. Autant que le circuit économique créé profite à la croissance de l'activité nationale. close volume_off Prospérité rime avec indépendance C'est ainsi que Venise inventa l'arsenal. On peut être un État commerçant ouvert sur le monde et garder jalousement fermée son industrie d'armement. La Chine de Xi Jinping a manifestement retenu les leçons de Marco Polo. Et Venise nous a appris que la prospérité dure tant que l'indépendance est garantie par ses propres armes et ses alliances. Survient une menace irrépressible (Bonaparte) et s'en est fini de l'indépendance et de la prospérité. L'arsenal vénitien est ainsi la mère de l'industrie d'armement, qui a gardé cette forme (et ce nom !) jusqu'à une date très récente. Pour des raisons d'efficacité économique et "d'ouverture aux marchés", la France a progressivement transformé ses arsenaux en sociétés anonymes. Le processus a pris 30 ans, depuis les poudres et explosifs au début des années 1970 jusqu'à la construction et la réparation navale au début du XXIe siècle. Il n'est d'ailleurs pas achevé : il en reste des traces sous la forme de prises de participation sous diverses formes et à différents niveaux, et surtout, il reste un "arsenal" : la direction des applications militaires du commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA/DAM). Tout cela pour dire que la préoccupation économique en matière de défense, disons l'efficience, est une idée très récente. Elle s'oppose aux notions militaires de "réserve", de "redondance" et de capacité de "remontée de puissance", indispensables à l'efficacité opérationnelle et à ce que l'on appelle aujourd'hui la résilience, c'est-à-dire la faculté de reprendre l'ascendant après avoir encaissé un choc d'une violence inhabituelle, voire imprévisible. Le dogme du principe d'efficience Le principe d'efficience est devenu la composante majeure de l'idéologie managériale qui a connu son apogée en France avec la révision générale des politiques publiques (RGPP) conçue et mise en œuvre entre 2007 et 2012 avec la brutalité et l'absence de discernement que l'on sait en matière de défense. Outre une saignée sans précédent en temps de paix dans les effectifs (54.000 suppressions), il en a résulté une série de fiascos (logiciel LOUVOIS) et de désorganisations (bases de défense, administration de proximité, subordination des soutiens) qui ont durablement affaibli les armées, l'instrument ultime de la résilience de la nation, notamment le service de santé. C'est la même logique managériale à l'œuvre dans les années suivantes qui a conduit à la liquidation des réserves de masques chirurgicaux et autres consommables permettant de faire face immédiatement à une épidémie sans arrêter brutalement l'activité économique. Autrement dit, le principe d'efficience est une belle théorie dont la mise en œuvre se révèle, dans la violence de ses conséquences, incapable de faire face à un évènement inattendu, même quand les experts en prédisent la survenue probable. La crise du Covid-19 a révélé le caractère foncièrement anti-économique de cette idéologie et la coupable naïveté des adeptes de l'ouverture aux marchés. Accepter de confier la sécurité d'un pays aux forces brutes des marchés relève de la même croyance candide que le pacifisme désarmera tout agresseur. On a le droit d'y croire, c'est beau, mais pas de gouverner au nom de tels croyances. C'est une question de responsabilité. Cela vaut aussi pour une certaine frange de la gauche. Dépense de défense, un effet multiplicateur de croissance Une fois admis l'ineptie du principe d'efficience dans les questions régaliennes et stratégiques, faut-il pour autant considérer que l'industrie de défense soit par nature anti-économique. C'est l'idée qu'on avancé certains théoriciens marxistes (dénonçant l'implication de la finance et donc de la classe dirigeante dans cette industrie) et les premiers keynésiens, au titre d'un effet d'éviction sur l'investissement privé. Curieusement, la théorie néolibérale dominante depuis 30 ans tend à reconnaître les effets positifs sur la croissance de l'investissement de défense par la dépense publique. Cela résulte moins d'études économétrique rigoureuses que des résultats empiriques des Reaganomics, qui ont permis aux États-Unis de surmonter la crise économique du début des années 1980 en s'appuyant sur une course aux armements qui a permis, accessoirement, de gagner la guerre froide. C'est sans doute pourquoi le gouvernement Fillon, pour sortir au plus vite de la crise de 2008, ne voit pas de contradiction, en pleine RGPP, à relancer l'économie notamment par une augmentation (mesurée mais réelle) de l'investissement de défense, au prix d'une augmentation de 50% de la dette publique. Depuis ce précédent, considéré comme réussi, de nombreuses études ont permis de mieux comprendre les mécanismes microéconomiques et macroéconomiques à l'œuvre. Un certain consensus des économistes spécialisés s'est même dégagé sur la valeur du multiplicateur de croissance de l'investissement de défense : en moyenne 1,27 à court terme et 1,68 à long terme, avec des disparités en fonction du degré d'ouverture à l'étranger. Peut-on en dire autant de toutes les dépenses publiques ? Cela signifie que l'on est dorénavant capable de prévoir qu'un investissement supplémentaire d'un euro dans tel secteur aura tel rendement à telle échéance. Mais les études vont encore plus loin dans l'analyse et s'intéressent au retour fiscal et social de l'investissement de défense. On sait désormais que ce retour est en moyenne de 50% au bout de deux ans et de 100% après un certain nombre d'années, en fonction des secteurs. Cela signifie que la défense ne peut plus être considérée comme un centre de coût, auquel on ne consent que par nécessité. On sait désormais que c'est un centre de profit, dont le rendement dépend de paramètres liés à l'autonomie stratégique. Relance par la défense : rendement optimal Moins un secteur industriel est dépendant d'un approvisionnement (ou d'une main d'œuvre) extérieur, plus ce rendement est élevé. A l'inverse, plus il y a de "fuites" à l'extérieur du circuit économique national, moins l'investissement est rentable économiquement. Reste à identifier ces fuites afin de les résorber gr'ce à une politique industrielle (et une planification) avisée. On sait que la relance par la "monnaie hélicoptère" et les baisses d'impôts n'ont pas un bon rendement, précisément à cause de ces "fuites" : vers les importations de biens de consommation d'un côté, vers l'épargne de l'autre. On sait que renflouer Air France (ou Renault) est nécessaire pour l'emploi, mais qu'en termes économiques, le retour sur investissement est faible, car cela revient, dans le cas d'Air France, à financer, outre Airbus, Boeing, les loueurs et les assureurs, tout en maintenant le pouvoir d'achat d'une catégorie sociale aisée dont le taux d'épargne est important. Dans le cas de la relance par la défense, le rendement est optimal, même s'il est encore possible de réduite les fuites. La "supply chain" des systémiers-intégrateurs et des grands équipementiers français du secteur de l'armement est essentiellement française. L'emploi se situe à 80% en province, y compris des emplois de haut niveau. Cette industrie à très haut niveau technologique fait appel à des savoir-faire quasi-artisanaux ; d'ailleurs, on ne parle pas d'ouvriers mais de compagnons, pas d'usines, mais d'ateliers. L'investissement dans l'innovation se répercute dans l'industrie civile, ne serait-ce que parce que la majorité de ces sociétés ont une activité duale. La balance commerciale de l'armement français est structurellement excédentaire, ce qui contribue au rendement économique d'un euro investi dans cette industrie, exportatrice par nécessité, du fait de l'insuffisante épaisseur du marché national pour absorber les coûts fixes. Un investissement qui rapporte En période de crise, l'effet contra-cyclique de l'investissement de défense permet d'absorber le choc de demande subi par l'activité civile. C'est particulièrement évident aujourd'hui dans le cas de l'aéronautique. Enfin, on sait aujourd'hui que cet investissement rapporte à terme plus que ce qu'il a coûté, y compris en tenant compte du coût du capital (particulièrement faible ces dernières années). Pourquoi s'en priver ? Oui, pourquoi se priver de tels avantages, au moment où le déficit public et l'endettement ne sont plus bridés par le Pacte de stabilité ? Au demeurant, la défense, pour ce qui concerne du moins les fabrications d'intérêt stratégique, est le seul secteur industriel (le seul !) à bénéficier du privilège exorbitant de n'être soumis ni aux règles de l'OMC, ni au droit commun du marché unique européen. Les biens et service de défense disposent d'une partie spécifique du code de la commande publique. Pourquoi s'en priver, alors qu'on pourrait relancer rapidement l'activité industrielle à droit constant, sans enfreindre aucune règle ? Aller vers une autonomie stratégique Pour finir, évoquons rapidement ce qui f'che. Si l'on veut que le rendement économique d'un euro investi dans la défense soit encore meilleur, il faut résorber les fuites résiduelles. Cela suppose d'abord de chercher à substituer des fournisseurs nationaux aux sous-traitants étrangers, tant pour des raisons d'autonomie stratégique ("désItarisation") que dorénavant pour des raisons de patriotisme économique. Cela est aussi valable pour les chantiers ayant pris l'habitude de faire appel, pour diverses raisons dont certaines sont difficilement critiquables (absence de personnel formé), aux travailleurs détachés, alors même que l'on sait à quel point les chantiers navals structurent l'activité dans les zones littorales. Enfin, il sera injustifiable de continuer à saigner la trésorerie des sociétés pour rémunérer des actionnaires qui se sont révélés défaillants dans leur rôle d'apporteurs de capitaux en période de crise. Le modèle anglo-saxon (cf. Rolls Royce) d'un "flottant" à 100% ne saurait convenir ; l'industrie de défense a besoin d'être détenue par des actionnaires fiables et responsables, y compris par gros temps. ------------------------------------------------- * Le groupe Mars, constitué d'une trentaine de personnalités françaises issues d'horizons différents, des secteurs public et privé et du monde universitaire, se mobilise pour produire des analyses relatives aux enjeux concernant les intérêts stratégiques relatifs à l'industrie de défense et de sécurité et les choix technologiques et industriels qui sont à la base de la souveraineté de la France. https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/l-investissement-dans-la-defense-rapporte-plus-que-ce-qu-il-coute-846190.html

Saab has successfully completed the first air trials with its new fighter X-band Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which will be offered as a new addition to Saab's PS-05/A radar family. Saab continues to develop core AESA technology and has now successfully completed the first air trials with the new X-band AESA radar. The trials were flown successfully, collecting data while detecting and tracking objects. The radar is designed for fighter aircraft and can be adapted to a variety of platforms. As Saab previously announced, a version of the new AESA antenna has been sold to a U.S. Government customer. “This is an important step in the development of our new fighter AESA radar. We see great possibilities for the radar, and its modular, adaptable and scalable design means it can also be used for a range of other applications,” said Anders Carp, SVP and head of Saab's business area surveillance. The host aircraft during the air trial was a Gripen D aircraft, which is currently offered with Saab's latest Mk4 radar. The new version of the radar can be offered to Gripen C/D operators, as an upgrade. The new AESA radar features GaN, a material that gives lower power consumption and improved heat resistance. This enables wider bandwidth and greater reliability, availability and efficiency. The new fighter X-band AESA radar will, for example, have better performance against small targets, enhanced Electronic Counter-Countermeasures (ECCM) capability as well as improved ability to support more advanced weaponry. https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/saabs-new-fighter-radar-in-the-air

By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has put in place stopgap fixes for five key technical flaws plaguing America's top-end fighter jet, but the problems have not been completely eliminated. Last June, Defense News reported exclusive details about 13 major technical issues, known as category 1 deficiencies, impacting the F-35. The JPO has since quietly downgraded five of those issues to the lesser category 2. A category 1 deficiency is defined as a shortfall that could cause death, severe injury or illness; could cause loss or damage to the aircraft or its equipment; critically restricts the operator's ability to be ready for combat; prevents the jet from performing well enough to accomplish primary or secondary missions; results in a work stoppage at the production line; or blocks mission-critical test points. In comparison, a category 2 deficiency is of lesser concern — something that requires monitoring, but not something that should impact operations. But downgrading the category doesn't mean the problems are solved, said Dan Grazier, who tracks military issues for the Project on Government Oversight. CAT 2 programs are still "definitely cause for concern. They are going to have an impact on how the aircraft performs,” Grazier said. "It really depends on what the issue is, but every design flaw has a potential issue on the mission. ... You want to not have flaws, you want these things can be fixed so pilots can get out and do what they need to do.” Aside from a few basic statements on which projects were downgraded to CAT 2, a JPO spokesperson said the office “cannot disclose any information about how these deficiencies were resolved or downgraded due to their security classification.” The ALIS sovereign data transfer solution does not meet information assurance requirements. The Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, provides the backbone of the F-35, used by the aircraft's operators in virtually all stages of flying and sustaining the Joint Strike Fighter. The system is used to plan and debrief missions, order spare parts, walk maintainers through repairs, and view technical data and work orders. (A potential replacement, named ODIN, is in the works.) But some international partners on the F-35 program have expressed concerns that data flowing through ALIS to the United States government — and to Lockheed Martin — could give both the U.S. military and the American defense contractor a window into that country's flight operations, including when and where its F-35s are flying. Those concerns were so high that two countries threatened to leave the program entirely if a fix was not quickly applied, according to the original documents viewed by Defense News. That fix is now in, according to the JPO, which said that on April 29, 2019, an update to ALIS included an initial version of a new Sovereign Data Management tool. “The SDM tool permits F-35 operators more control over the types of Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) data that are transferred to the F-35 Operations Center,” the JPO said. Incorrect inventory data for complex assemblies continues to result in grounding conditions. This particular deficiency involves supplies or components that, upon installation, are not actually listed and tracked in ALIS as designed. Those require specific, almost daily requests to software engineers to have data corrected in the system. While those requests can catch some problems, the issue is not always detected by the user. These “holes,” as the JPO calls them, do not collect data on how parts are used after installation, which means a part might be breaking down from heavy use. Yet, that part won't be flagged by ALIS as an at-risk piece. As a result, it's less likely that issues developing from wear and tear or a lack of replacement parts will be discovered until such an issue has become an acute problem, possibly leading to a grounding of the aircraft. The issue was downgraded to a CAT 2 deficiency on Jan. 13, 2020, “due to ALIS data quality improvements that have been made in the two years since this DR [deficiency report] was written,” according to the JPO. “The quality improvements have reduced the frequency and magnitude of issues that have impacted operational units' abilities to quickly release aircraft for flight following maintenance.” The F-35B and F-35C experienced incongruous lateral and longitudinal control response above a 20-degree angle of attack. One of the most eye-opening issues identified in the initial report was that the F-35B and F-35C models used by the Marine Corps and Navy become difficult to control when operating above a 20-degree angle of attack — which would be seen in the extreme maneuvers a pilot might use in a dogfight or while avoiding a missile. Pilots reported the aircraft experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch, as well as erratic yaw and rolling motions when coming in at that angle of attack.. “It has random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above [its] 20-[degree angle of attack]," a longtime naval aviator told Defense News last year. "[So] if I had to perform the aircraft — if I had to maneuver to defeat a missile, maneuver to fight another aircraft, the plane could have issues moving. And if I turn around aggressively and get away from these guys and use the afterburner, [the horizontal tail and tail boom] start to melt or have issues.” The issue was important enough that it accounted for two CAT 1 issues, one each for the two variants impacted by the design issue. However, the JPO downgraded this issue to a CAT 2 on May 28, 2019, for the F-35C and on July 8, 2019, for the F-35B. The solution involves “improvements in flying qualities that were implemented in software. The improvements provide pilots with an intuitive reference indication for AOA [angle of attack], which allows pilots to more quickly optimize lateral maneuvering during air-to-air maneuvering. These software improvements have been released to all F-35 operators.” There were unanticipated thrust limits in jetborne flight on hot days. This particular issue only occurred once, but was so significant that it was identified in the original document as the “No. 1 priority” for the Marine Corps. The issue was identified aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex, where a Marine pilot performed what is known as a “mode four” operation. That is where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to a target area and then vertically lands onto the ship. It's a key capability for the "B" model, which was designed for its short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing abilities. The engine — working hard on a day that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base — wouldn't generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing. The pilot managed to land, but the issue set off alarm bells in the Marine aviation community. The JPO initially expected a fix for this issue to be out sometime in 2019, but it wasn't until March 2020 that a mix of nondescript “software updates and procedural adjustments” brought the “propulsion system performance back to original specified performance levels.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/04/24/five-f-35-issues-have-been-downgraded-but-they-remain-unsolved/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The fight to build America's next missile interceptor has officially begun. The Missile Defense Agency on Friday released its request for proposal for its Next-Generation Interceptor (NGI). The RFP aims to downselect to two companies who will then compete for the right to build the interceptor, which will form the core of America's homeland missile defense going forward. Proposals are due July 31, but the MDA notes that there may be some give in that schedule due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. The agency requested $664.1 million in fiscal year 2021 for the NGI program, as part of a $4.9 billion five-year budget plan. Mark Wright, a spokesman for MDA, called the RFP “a vital step forward in designing, developing, and fielding the finest capabilities of both the DoD and American industry for the extraordinarily important purpose of defending the American homeland.” “Notably, the intention of awarding two contracts for simultaneous development of the NGI effort promotes a healthy competition between the two contractor teams to produce the best NGI possible in the shortest time feasible,” Wright added. In August, the Pentagon made the surprise decision to cancel the Redesigned Kill Vehicle program, with DoD research and engineering head Mike Griffin saying he didn't want to keep throwing money at a program with fundamental technical issues. RKV would have upgraded the U.S. homeland defense system's interceptors designed to go after ballistic missile defense threats. The Pentagon decided that no more ground-based interceptors for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System (GMD) would be built and all future interceptors that are fielded as part of the GMD system will be the new interceptor – that is, the NGI program. Critics of the decision to cancel RKV and start over with a new design have raised concerns over the timeline, which could extend past 2030. But speaking in March, MDA head Vice Adm. Jon Hill said that waiting that long for the new capability is “unacceptable from a war fighter view” and “unacceptable to me as a program manager.” Hill said once bids are on the table, the agency will be able to take a harder look at schedule and once an award has been made, it will hold industry accountable to meet “all the wickets.” If that happens, the schedule can be pulled to the left. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2020/04/24/pentagon-releases-request-for-proposals-on-next-generation-interceptor/

By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― Cash flow for small defense contractors is continuing to suffer under the coronavirus pandemic, according to a survey by the National Defense Industrial Association. The survey echoes warnings from the Pentagon that these firms, part of a vast network of suppliers that makes up the defense-industrial base, are especially vulnerable. The Pentagon this week announced it will make $3 billion in new “progress payments" to increase cash flow to prime contractors, expecting the money would then trickle down. Of the NDIA survey respondents: 67 percent of companies with less than $1 million in annual revenue have seen a cash-flow disruption. 60 percent said the crisis has interfered with their cash flow. 60 percent expect to have long-term financial and cash-flow issues stemming from the crisis. 66 percent said accelerated payments from the Defense Department or prime contractors would be the most helpful step toward business recovery. L3Harris Technologies said this week it will issue more than $100 million in payments to its small suppliers. Lockheed Martin announced Friday it executed $256 million in accelerated payment toward its $450 million goal. Both of these promised followed the Pentagon's announcement this month that it will boost progress payment rates from 80 percent to 90 percent for large companies, and to 95 percent for small businesses. The payments are made to contractors, usually on a monthly basis, for costs incurred and work performed under a contract; a 90 percent rate means that if $1 million in expenses are submitted on the program, the Defense Department will reimburse $900,000. Sixty-six percent of the respondents also said it would help them to receive flexibility on the performance of their contracts. Seventy-two percent expected to avoid overruns on their firm fixed-price contracts as a result of disruptions caused by COVID-19. On Thursday, acquisitions officials with the Army said they expect costs to rise, and in response will guard against program slips and closely watch vulnerable lower-tier companies with less slack in their workforces. Pentagon officials anticipate workforce and supply chain issues will yield a three-month delay across the majority of its Major Defense Acquisition Program portfolio. “The supply chain does have some challenges, and that's probably where the vast majority of any slips would occur that are tied to individual companies,” said Bruce Jette, the Army's acquisition chief. “These companies are small, and if one person gets COVID in the company, the next thing you know you've lost 14 days with the company because everybody that didn't get it is in quarantine.” As of April 10, 769 small businesses responded to the NDIA survey. The number of companies expecting cash-flow disruptions was slightly lower last month, when 458 small businesses responded. Factoring into cash-flow problems, according to the NDIA, are cuts to billable hours, delayed payments from prime contractors and government customers, a lack of telework options or schedule flexibility in contracts, and shelter-in-place orders that prevent employees from working. Beyond revenue expectations, meeting contract obligations and access to capital are where small businesses are taking the biggest hits during the pandemic. Other areas of difficulty were workforce availability, access to secure facilities, contracting officers accessibility, clear information from the Defense Department, confidence in the supply chain, and stock and cost of materials. The technology and services sectors reported more disturbances from the crisis than the manufacturing sector, NDIA noted. And businesses with fewer than 50 employees are feeling the brunt harder than businesses with more than 500 employees. Defense Contract Management Agency data this week showed that 106 out of 10,509 primary Pentagon contractors are closed, and 68 companies closed and then reopened. Of 11,413 subcontractors, 427 were closed, with 147 having closed and reopened. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/04/24/covid-cash-crunch-still-hurting-small-defense-firms/

By: Thomas G. Mahnken The massive price tag associated with the response to the new coronavirus, COVID-19, coupled with the inevitable impact of the pandemic on the U.S. economy, threatens to blow a hole in the defense budget at a time when the challenges posed by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea show no signs of abating. Leaders in both the executive and legislative branches will need to make tough strategic choices to keep the United States strong in these challenging times. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, his predecessor Jim Mattis and the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission all agree that annual increases in the defense budget on the order of 3-5 percent are required to implement the 2018 National Defense Strategy. Even absent the pandemic, the chances of getting such resources seemed uncertain at best. The Trump administration's own budget projections show the defense budget in the coming years as flat or declining. Now, a flat budget more and more appears to be the rosiest scenario. More worrisome, and increasingly likely, is the possibility of major cuts to the defense budget. Indeed, cuts on the order of 20-25 percent are not unthinkable. Merely pointing out that such a move would jeopardize U.S. security is unlikely to prevent it. Similarly, noting — correctly — that defense spending is one of the most stimulative forms of federal spending may prove insufficient to forestall cuts. How can the United States realize the greatest economic and military benefit from the defense budget in the coming years? Below are a half-dozen guidelines to help the United States get the maximum strategic benefit from defense spending in this challenging time: 1. Keep production lines going. Now is not the time to be cutting back on defense production. To the contrary, keeping existing weapons production lines active makes both military and economic sense. The U.S. military is in many ways still living off the Reagan-era defense buildup of the 1980s and is sorely in need of modernization. Keeping defense production going also makes good economic sense. In a period of rising unemployment, employing as many Americans as possible will help the United States weather the economic storm brought on by COVID-19. The government should also be flexible in administering the cost and schedule of contracts, given the pandemic's impact on the defense-industrial base. 2. Stock up. Now is also the time to increase orders of things we know that we need but have not purchased enough of, such as munitions. As the NDS Commission found in 2018, the United States has under-invested in precision munitions such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range and Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. Ramping up production of munitions and other expendables will not only boost employment but also help the United States better prepare for a future conflict where such munitions will be in high demand. 3. Be selective in divesting. The United States should also divest itself of aging capabilities but be thoughtful in doing so. It makes sense to retire old ships and aircraft because the cost of maintaining those systems goes up considerably as they age. It makes much less sense to divest relatively new systems that have plenty of life left in them. For example, the Air Force has proposed shutting down production of the MQ-9 Reaper and retiring more than two-thirds of its RQ-4 Global Hawk fleet. 4. Get the most out of what we have. Whereas economic conditions may have changed, the external threats that we face have not. As a result, there is an urgent need to develop new ways of war, particularly those that use more effective capabilities that we have. For example, as I have argued elsewhere, non-stealthy unmanned aerial systems such as the MQ-9 and RQ-4 offer a cost-effective way to deter opportunistic aggression by China in the Western Pacific or Russia in Eastern Europe. 5. Keep promoting innovation. A downturn in the defense budget should not become an excuse for conservatism. To the contrary, it should spur innovation. For example, fiscal austerity provides an opportunity to reform the military health care system and downsize basing infrastructure. Now is also the time to explore ways to make military training more effective and cost-efficient through the adoption of approaches such as live, virtual, constructive training. There are also opportunities to realize savings through greater outsourcing of maintenance and logistics. Whereas the defense primes employ the most workers, in a number of cases smaller companies have been the source of some of the most innovative approaches to defense in areas such as unmanned systems, expendable aircraft, space innovations, networked solutions and cyber. Supporting smaller, innovative companies should thus be a priority. The Defense Department and Congress should also take an active role in supporting key segments of the defense-industrial base. Areas such as hypersonics, directed energy and unmanned systems that hold the key to effectiveness tomorrow will need support today. 6. Share costs. Finally, the United States should take every opportunity to promote arms exports, which both create jobs and increase the security of our allies. Much more should be done to increase the speed and predictability of the arms export process. In addition, with few exceptions, U.S. weapons should be developed with export in mind. We should avoid a repetition of the case of the F-22 aircraft, which was designed from birth never to be exported. We need to learn from the past in developing the next generation of weapons. For example, in recent months, Australian defense analysts have discussed the attractiveness of the B-21 Raider stealth bomber for Australia's defense needs. Export of the B-21 to a close ally such as Australia, should Canberra so desire, should be given serious consideration. The current situation is challenging, with even more difficult times to come. If we are smart, however, we can both keep Americans at work and get what we need for national defense. Thomas G. Mahnken is president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank. He is also a senior research professor at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/24/six-ways-the-us-can-maximize-its-strategic-benefit-from-defense-spending/

James Yeager This year is only four months old and it's already one for the history books — and not in a great way. As the defense community works in tandem with the broader government to keep citizens safe and healthy, cybersecurity threats are only becoming more aggressive. If we've learned anything about cyber adversaries, it's that they will seize on any opportunity to gain an advantage in targeting their victims, including exploiting the fears of the public during a global pandemic. As COVID-19 has moved from the East to the West, adversaries have followed suit, using lures that play into people's desperation for information on the disease. In “The Art of War,” Sun-Tzu said“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.” The COVID-19 virus is infecting more than just people. The pandemic has created chaos and handed adversaries an irresistible opportunity to exploit the situation to gain entry into our networks, whether that's to steal intellectual property, disrupt operations, or gain a strategic advantage if they are a nation-state actor. Already, we are seeing an increase in phishing campaigns using COVID-19 as a hook to launch malware in emails disguised as alerts. Particularly vulnerable are the thousands of remote workers — government employees and contractors alike — who are using their own home networks, which are largely less sophisticated and secure than their work environments. The stakes are high, particularly for those in defense jobs, where an errant click can have devastating consequences. Coincidently, 2020 is the year when the DoD's Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification has grown teeth and will force more than 300,000 defense contractors to up their cybersecurity game or face bottom-line consequences. Now is not the time to make mistakes. In CrowdStrike's recent Global Threat Report, we captured and analyzed real-world inputs from observed trends in cyber-attacks on commercial and government enterprises. The following are some of the notable attack vectors and trends we observed across the public sector during 2019: An escalation in ransom demands, including ransomware attacks on defense supply chain providers, schools and local municipalities. Surpassing the volume of malware attacks are malware-free attacks that use code which executes from memory or stolen login credentials. Continued state-sponsored targeted intrusions aimed at the government and defense sector. In fact, we have witnessed adversaries exploiting fear around COVID-19 to socially engineer their way to user credentials and sensitive data. In the months ahead, I contend we'll see many more of the same tactics from the same bad actors: Russia, China and newer players on the block, such as Iran, which has leveraged U.S. social media platforms to develop information operations campaigns. Amidst massive change, periodic chaos and long-term disruption, the defense community — government and industry — must put a premium on speed. Speed to detect. Speed to investigate. Speed to mitigate. We recommend that agencies and companies implement cybersecurity practices that follow the 1-10-60 Rule: detect intrusions within 1 minute; investigate and gain a comprehensive understanding of the attack within 10 minutes; and contain and remove the threatening adversary from the network within 60 minutes. This benchmark will limit the damage caused by inevitable attacks. Yes, inevitable. Cyberattacks are a constant and while building a bigger, wider and thicker wall may help keep bad actors out, they are persistent and determined enough to eventually get in, and when they do, you're on the clock. This year will only get worse as the impacts of COVID-19 will be deep, damaging and long-lasting. We're all faced with loss and uncertainty as we attempt to recover from the global pandemic. For the defense community, there is no time to recover and regroup. You are already on the clock, as those who wish to do our nation harm are already hard at work. https://www.fifthdomain.com/opinion/2020/04/24/in-chaos-theres-opportunity-and-thats-bad-news/