Nouvelles

Nathan Strout Starting in 1961, the National Reconnaissance Office has been tasked with designing, building, launching and operating the United States' fleet of intelligence satellites. Over the years, that mission has evolved, bolting on new components and missions. Now in 2020, the NRO is looking to change once again, moving beyond the status quo by issuing a new set of contracts toward the end of this year that will reshape the intelligence community's relationship with commercial imagery. Peter Muend, the head of NRO's commercial imagery efforts, told C4ISRNET that the agency is “obviously very committed to utilizing commercial imagery to the maximum extent practical in support of defense, national security and all the other mission areas that we serve.” “I think the best philosophy that underpins that is one that says ‘We really are looking to buy everywhere we can and only build what we have to—what's really not available on the commercial market,‘” Muend said. An important condition to that approach is that the commercial imagery market actually have commercial support. In other words, Muend doesn't want any of these companies to exist solely to support government requirements. There should be a real commercial market for these capabilities, which will help drive down costs for the government. To understand the agency's approach to commercial imagery, it's best to go back to 2017, when the NRO took over the role of acquiring commercial satellite imagery on behalf of the intelligence community from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Under this new paradigm, NGA serves as the geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) functional manager, determining what imagery the intelligence community needs and writing those requirements, but it's up to NRO to determine how those requirements are filled. Then in 2018, another step occurred when the NGA's EnhancedView contract was transferred to NRO, which issued a follow-on contract to Maxar shortly thereafter. That single EnhancedView contract has been one of the primary source of commercial imagery for the intelligence community for years. The goal now is to start the move beyond EnhancedView. That process started in 2019, when the NRO issued a request for information (RFI) to see what types, quality and quantity of imagery industry could provide. For Muend, that RFI sent a message to industry: the intelligence community was looking to the commercial sector for imagery that went beyond the requirements, capacity and capability the government had sought in the past. That RFI initially led to a trio of study contracts for Maxar, BlackSky and Planet. “Really, the purpose of those study contracts was to serve a couple purposes, one being to take a look at their systems and really understand their performance from a modeling and simulation standpoint to really see what they can do and how they would measure up and meet our capability,” said Muend. “The other part was really to assess imagery, because of course a lot of the input we got back from the RFI emphasized the quality of the imagery and how much they could deliver. It's one thing to get an RFI response. It's another thing to actually formally assess and measure.” In the year since those first study contracts were issued, the agency has issued a handful of other study contracts, primarily to companies offering different phenomenologies than electro-optical imagery, including synthetic aperture radar and radio frequency sensing. Muend clarified that those study contracts were less focused on purchasing data from those phenomenologies and more focused on ensuring the agency's systems could interface with those phenomenologies. “We certainly see a very vibrant future ahead for those phenomenologies. We're excited for them to continue to mature and we're certainly looking forward to taking advantage of them in the future,” said Muend. “But again, the specific contracts we're moving forward with toward the end of the year are more focused on the electro-optical side.” Back on that electro-optical side of things, the study contracts have been mutually beneficial, said Muend. Not only has NRO learned what capabilities are available commercially and how they can be incorporated, the vendors have gotten a better understanding of what the agency is looking for. “And then on the imagery side, we've certainly learned a lot — certainly some of the differences between what the glossy advertising sheets say and then what's really available when looked at analytically in the way that we and the larger community do,” said Muend. When pressed on that point, Muend declined to characterize whether any company had failed to live up to or superseded its claims. All of those efforts are leading up to source selection and contract awards toward the end of the year. Muend noted that there were likely to be awards to multiple companies and those contracts will specifically pertain to electo-optical imagery. “One thing that we have seen out of our study contracts and our market research is that no single provider can currently meet what we're asking for out of our requirements. So it is going to be an aggregate of capability from multiple vendors, and in addition it's going to be something that they're going to have to grow into over time, that they expand their capabilities to meet our needs,” he explained. As a precursor to that decision, NRO issued an RFI in June to help the agency standardize end user license agreements for imagery. Those agreements govern how the agency is able to use and share the imagery it collects, explained Muend. As NRO prepares to begin purchasing imagery from multiple companies, it wants to make sure those agreements are clear, intuitive and broadly uniform. “We're very, very excited about the future, about establishing a new set of operational imagery contracts to not only take advantage of our current industry base, but the growing new entrants and new providers as well,” said Muend. “We're eager to get moving.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/2020/07/17/how-the-intelligence-community-is-approaching-commercial-imagery/

Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg and Jan Kallberg There is always something taken away when there are added functionalities. Does the concept of wearing augmented reality that digitally provides situational awareness create an upside that outweighs what it takes away for rifleman skills? The supercharged hearing, six senses for those equipped, broader view of sight, picking up smells, changes in lights and shadows, slightest change in the near environment: With all these close-action skills, will augmented reality create more distraction than enhancement? Is it too early to push digital situational awareness all the way down to the soldier in maneuver units? Is the upside present? Naturally, all new defense technology takes time to find its place in the fight. The helicopter was invented in the 1930s, and it found a limited military role in the Korean War, not meeting the military expectation of higher impact. But 15 years later, it played a pivotal role in the war in Vietnam. New technology is not only technology — the human component to properly implement it is likely slower than the technological advancements. It is always easier to question than explain, and we understand that many thoughts and thousands of work hours have gone into designing the early augmented reality systems. However, still we find our questions worth discussing because once fielded, utilized and put into action in a conflict, it is too late to raise any concerns. This is the time to discuss. How reliable are the sensors? Can the sensors be easily spoofed? Is it too early to push it all the way down to the individual soldier? A technologically advanced adversary will likely devote research already in peacetime to develop one-time use, tossable, simple, low-cost devices that can — in close combat — create spurious sensor data and derail augmented reality. If the integrity of the sensor data is in question, it will likely force commanders to refrain from using augmented reality. A similar, relevant issue is the extent of the augmented reality technology's electromagnetic signature. Will the interconnectivity of the squad's augmented reality compromise the unit and deliver information to the enemy? What we do not want to face is a situation where adversaries can pinpoint the location or proximity to U.S. forces by simple detection measures. So, worst-case scenario, inexpensive devices can nullify a significant U.S. investment in technology, training and tactics. Added to the loss of usable augmented reality equipment, the soldiers could be “HUD-crippled.” Navy aviators use the term “HUD-cripple” to visualize a complete dependency of heads-up displays in the cockpit. The “HUD-cripple” is the loss of traditional Navy aviator skills such as landing on an aircraft carrier without the heads-up display. Will soldiers have retained the skills to fight effectively without augmented reality if it goes down? Technical advancements bring us new options and abilities, and they increase mission success. But as with all uncharted territory, they also bring surprises and unanticipated outfalls. During the war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, military aviation instruments took a significant leap forward, going from World War II-styled gauges in fixed-winged Douglas A-1 Skyraider planes to an earlier version of today's instrumentation in McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle fighter jets rolled out as the war in Vietnam came to an end. Parallel with the military advancements, these avionic upgrades were transposed into civilian cockpits with increased complexity and variations, as jetliners are multi-engine airframes, where the number of information points and alarms became numerous in the jetliner cockpit. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, civilian aviation faced several accidents that were hard to explain with standard aviation physics and crash evidence. Instead, the conversations recorded in the black boxes revealed these fatal air crashes. Several of the deadly crashes could have had another outcome if the pilots had not become overwhelmed by all the blinking lights, alarms, buzzers and avionics grabbing their attention, so the pilots lost situational awareness and focus. The warnings, avionics and buzzers had the correct information, but the presentation was a tsunami of red blinkers and alarming sounds, lacking any hints on how to prioritize what needs to be done to recover from a dangerous in-flight emergency. In our view, the key to effective augmented reality is to structure and segment what matters and when. Units — and it varies from soldier to soldier — have different experience levels, so information has a variation in value down to the soldier level. In research design, you seek to explain as much as you can with as little as you can without losing rigor. The same challenge goes for augmented reality, where rigor could be said to be the integrity of the information. Transferred to the ground-fighting world, are we, as an engineering-driven nation, so technology-happy that instead of creating tools for increased survivability and mission success, we initially increase the risks for the war fighter and only correct these after we suffered a surprise in combat? We understand that implementing augmented reality is a long process that is just now at the stage of proving the concept; with setbacks and successes, where are we on the learning curve? In our view, synthetic learning environments have already matured and provide an ample opportunity to use the augmented reality technology with a high return on investment. The opportunities reside in knowledge transfer, sharing experiences, preparing for an ever-changing operational environment, and by doing so, increasing soldiers' survivability and ensuring mission success. The question is: Are we ready to rely on augmented reality in combat? Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point and a simulation operations officer. Jan Kallberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, and an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Defense Department. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/17/augmented-reality-seeing-the-benefits-is-believing/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's top weapons acquisition official on Thursday called for another review of what defense technology is export-restricted, in an attempt to ensure the United States remains a defense technology provider of choice for other nations. Speaking at an event hosted by the Reagan Foundation, Ellen Lord said she has in recent months become “passionate” about revisiting export controls. “In the next six months, I very much hope to open the envelope, particularly on some of the weapons technology that we can export,” Lord said. “I am concerned that sometimes we are losing international competitions, because we have — as we have increased our capability, we have not increased the capabilities that we export in a commensurate fashion,” she added. “And we sometimes are having some of our potential customers, typically in the Mideast turn to Russia or China — you see the same thing in India, for instance.” Export control reform is hardly a new issue. In 2018, the Trump administration unveiled new defense export policies that it said should increase sales of U.S. weapons abroad; during the rollout, officials used some of the same phrasing about the need to think “strategically” as Lord did on Thursday. And in a process that started under the Obama administration and continued into the Trump administration, the U.S. State Department reviewed the 21 categories on the U.S. Munitions List, moving thousands of pieces of technology into categories that allow for straight commercial sales without a government review. Many of those technologies that were reviewed are systems that are no longer unique to America, or are so prevalent in commercial systems that to restrict them would be to harm broad swathes of American industry. But Lord's comments indicated that she feels not enough has been done in the realm of making it easier to export defense items. “We are having a very focused discussion on: Let's rethink this from a strategic point of view” she said. “A lot of this technology — frankly, the magic sauce is in the manufacturing of it, the technical data package doesn't always give it to you. So obviously we have to make sure we're very careful not to have things that could be disassembled and understood and so forth.” Lord also noted a desire to “beef up” the National Technology and Industrial Base, or NTIB, which currently covers Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. Countries in the NTIB are considered part of the American defense industrial base, making it easier to collaborate on materiel. The U.S. remains the largest arms exporter in the world. Per data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, America represented about 35 percent of all arms exports from 2015-2019; Russia, at 18 percent, was a distant second. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/07/16/lord-hopes-to-loosen-weapon-export-restrictions-in-next-six-months/

AIR FORCE Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Georgia, has been awarded a $15,000,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for C-130J development, integration, retrofit and production activities for all C-130J variants. This contract provides flexibility to accommodate the broad enterprise of activities associated with the C-130J program. Work will be performed in Marietta, Georgia, and is expected to be completed July 16, 2030. This contract involves Foreign Military Sales and is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $3,300,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright‐Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the primary contracting activity (FA8625‐20‐D‐3000). Leidos Inc., Arlington, Virginia, has been awarded a ceiling $30,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for high speed attack munitions research. The first task order will be for a $341,500 award under task order FA8651-20-F-1011. The five-year contract will support research and development, advancing state of the art in weapons airframe research to explore the impacts of complex flight environments on advanced weapon systems. Work will be performed at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and is expected to be completed August 2021 for the initial task order. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $325,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity (FA8651-20-D-0011). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Stryker Corp., doing business as Stryker Endoscopy, San Jose, California, has been awarded a maximum $225,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for patient monitoring and capital equipment systems and accessories. This was a competitive acquisition with 52 offers received. This is a five-year base contract with one five-year option period. Location of performance is California, with a July 16, 2025, ordering period end date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2025 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2D1-20-D-0011). Stonewin LLC, Miami, Florida, has been awarded a minimum $7,775,696 modification (P00001) to a 54-month contract (SPE605-20-D-4522) with a six-month option period to increase funds for various types of fuel. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract under solicitation SPE605-20-R-0200. This modification increases the contract ceiling from $2,700,575 to $10,476,271. Locations of performance are Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada and Utah, with a Sept. 30, 2024, performance completion date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2024 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND Collins Aerospace Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was awarded a $126,000,000 maximum indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-reimbursable contract (H92241-20-D-0002) in support of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for continued research, development, production and sustainment of the common avionics architecture system, avionics management system and cockpit management system used on Army special operations aircraft. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $346,082 were obligated at the time of award. The majority of the work will be performed in Cedar Rapids. The contract is a non-competitive award and is in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302.1. USSOCOM, Tampa, Florida, is the contracting activity. NAVY Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Marlborough, Massachusetts, is awarded a $125,881,928 fixed-price, incentive fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-16-C-5370 to exercise options for the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) low rate initial production (LRIP). Work will be performed in Marlborough, Massachusetts (76%); Andover, Massachusetts (18%); Sudbury, Massachusetts (5%); and Portsmouth, Rhode Island (1%). This option exercise is for the production of six EASR LRIP units; four AN/SPY-6(V)2 (air and missile defense radar) EASR rotator LRIP units; and two AN/SPY-6(V)3 EASR fixed-faced LRIP units. The AN/SPY-6(V)2 EASR rotator LRIP units will be deployed on the USS Bougainville (LHA-8); USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74); USS Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD-29); and USS Harrisburg (LPD-30). The AN/SPY-6(V)3 EASR fixed-faced LRIP units will be deployed on USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79); and USS Brooke (FFG-1). Work is expected to be completed by January 2023. Fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $122,301,170 will be obligated at time of award. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $935,530,602 contract, which consists of an $895,531,143 not-to-exceed cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, fixed-price-incentive-firm, firm-fixed-price undefinitized line item; and a $39,999,459 cost-plus-incentive-fee definitized line item. The undefinitized line items procure support equipment, autonomic logistics information system hardware, training systems, site activations and integrated contractor support for the F-35 Lightning II. Additionally, definitized line items on this contract support tasking that will result in improvements to the reliability, availability, maintainability and total ownership cost of the F-35 Lightning II for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, non-Department of Defense (DOD) participants and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida (76%); Fort Worth, Texas (10%); Redondo Beach, California (9%); Owego, New York (4%); and Samlesbury, United Kingdom (1%), and is expected to be completed by March 2026. Fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $205,656,772; fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Air Force) funds in the amount of $153,835,313; non-DOD participant funds in the amount of 279,748,427; and FMS funds in the amount of $62,479,903 will be obligated at time of award. No funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-20-C-0032). ARMY Bryan 77 Construction JV, Colorado Springs, Colorado (W912GB-20-D-0004); Framaco International Inc., Rye Brook, New York (W912GB-20-D-0005); Sociedad Espanola De Montajes Industriales SA, Madrid, Spain (W912GB-20-D-0006); Serka Taahhut Insaat Anonim Sirketi, Istanbul, Turkey (W912GB-20-D-0007); SKE SRL, Vicenza, Italy (W912GB-20-D-0008); and Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, Ankara, Turkey (W912GB-20-D-0009), will compete for each order of the $49,950,000 firm-fixed-price contract to provide design-build and design-bid-build construction services in Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Bids were solicited via the internet with 12 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of July 16, 2025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wiesbaden, Germany, is the contracting activity. South Dade Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Inc.,* Homestead, Florida, was awarded a $49,877,832 firm-fixed-price contract to provide all plant, labor, materials and equipment to provide road repair and paving in support of Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. Bids were solicited via the internet with nine received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of July 19, 2023. U.S. Army 419th Contracting Support Brigade, Fort Stewart, Georgia, is the contracting activity (W9124M-20-D-0007). Savi Technology Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia, was awarded a $45,805,123 firm-fixed-price contract for active radio frequency identification transponder tags to track equipment worldwide. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of July 16, 2024. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity (W52P1J-20-D-0034). Hughes Construction Services LLC,* Ozark, Alabama, was awarded a $45,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for rapid-response temporary roofing projects in the continental U.S. coastal regions in the event of an emergency. Bids were solicited via the internet with 16 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2027. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-20-D-0037). General Dynamic Land Systems Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan, was awarded a $44,415,556 modification (PZ0003) to contract W56HZV-20-F-0060 to procure improved fire control electronics units in support of the Abrams expedited active protection system-trophy. Work will be performed in Tallahassee, Florida, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 1, 2022. Fiscal 2020 weapons and tracked combat vehicles procurement (Army) funds in the amount of $44,415,556 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, is the contracting activity. Southwest Valley Constructors, Albuquerque, New Mexico, was awarded a $22,303,760 modification (P00015) to contract W912PL-19-C-0015 to modify existing barrier wall electrical attributes, closed circuit television, linear ground detection system and shelters. Work will be performed in Lukeville, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 7, 2021. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Army) funds in the amount of $22,303,760 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona, is the contracting activity. ESI Contracting Corp.,* Kansas City, Missouri, was awarded an $11,662,196 firm-fixed-price contract for Missouri River levee system repair. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in Brunswick, Missouri, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 1, 2022. Fiscal 2020 civil flood control and coastal emergencies funds in the amount of $11,662,196 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Kansas City, Missouri, is the contracting activity (W912DQ-20-C-1087). Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. LLC,* Oak Brook, Illinois, was awarded an $8,841,345 firm-fixed-price contract for maintenance dredging of the inland waterway C&D Canal federal navigation project. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in Chesapeake City, Maryland, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 29, 2021. Fiscal 2020 civil operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $8,841,345 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (W912BU-20-C-0031). DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY Lockheed Martin Corp., Rotary and Mission Systems, Riviera Beach, Florida, has been awarded an $11,196,098 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program. Fiscal 2020 research and development funds in the amount of $5,600,000 are being obligated at the time of award with an estimated completion date of September 2021. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HR0011-20-C-0139). Lockheed Martin Corp., Missiles and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support the Operational Fires Integrated Weapon System Phase 3 program. This modification exercises the Contract Line Item Number 0005 option (valued at $7,451,558) for the development, building, integration, assembly, testing and checkout of the propulsion components for the Stage 2 section of the missile. Fiscal 2020 research and development funds in the amount of $1,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Work will be performed in Camden, Arkansas (50%); Huntsville, Alabama (45%); and Orange, Virginia (5%), with an estimated completion date of January 2022. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HR0011-20-C-0038). (Awarded Jan. 10, 2020) *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2278883/source/GovDelivery/

"We were in a very frenzied state," Air Force acquisition head Will Roper says of DoD efforts to stave off the collapse of key suppliers during the early weeks of the coronavirus crisis. By THERESA HITCHENSon July 17, 2020 at 4:38 PM WASHINGTON: Air Force acquisition head Will Roper says DoD needs to develop a new supply chain strategy that incentivizes industry to build a more diverse, responsive and resilient supply chain. “What I hope sticks on the other side of COVID-19 is a strategic focus on the supply chain,” he told a webinar co-sponsored by Government Matters and the Farnborough International Association today, on the even of the virtual air show. “Government has to have a strategy. We have to explain to industry what we consider good supply chain management practices to be, and not to be. And we need to write that in plain English, which the government has a tough time doing frequently.” That strategy also has to be followed up with incentives for industry to do the right thing, he said. “We have to put our money where our mouth is,” Roper said. For example, he said, it should include incentivizing contractors, big and small, to use digital manufacturing technologies that allow companies to quickly pivot to different missions in times of need. “That's a strategic capability for the nation. We need to encourage that,” he said. Roper noted that the Air Force is attempting to do just that with its centerpiece Advanced Battle Management Program (ABMS), being designed as a technology foundation for running future all-domain wars via the Joint All-Domain Command and Control System (JADC2). “We've got a pretty cool program called the Advanced Battle Management System. It's not a cool name — it's kind of like Castle Anthrax in Monty Python: ‘it's not a good name but it's the one we've got',” he joked. “That's a program where adaptability is king.” He explained that the service is working with industry to both explain, and reward, technology initiatives that will give operators the ability to rapidly upgrade or switch out old capabilities for new ones. As Breaking D readers knows, ABMS is attempting to iterate technologies developed under the program on a four-month cycle. Roper said the first three weeks of the COVID-19 crisis threw DoD into a maelstrom as acquisition authorities tried to cope with the potential of supplier collapse. “We were in a very frenzied state,” he said. The Air Force is the executive agent for all DoD use of Defense Production Act Title III contracts to support industry suffering from the coronavirus pandemic. However, the Defense Industrial Base Sector Coordinating Council under the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) actually chooses which companies to support based on service requests — including for the Air Force. While Roper sees ongoing problems from COVID-19 impacts on suppliers, especially small firms for whom cash-flow is highly important, he said that the Air Force and DoD are in a much better place now to handle them as they arise. “I don't think we'll see something as frenzied as what we went through during the first three weeks of COVID,” he said. “I think if this continues in future, we will have to take aggressive actions when there are hotspots that fire up in the country. Smaller companies are always going to be at risk by a few number of COVID-19 cases — they're going to have to shut down their facilities, they're going to have to clean, they're gonna have to be work force quarantining — and for companies of that size, having cash on hand to make payroll, to make invoicing, is critically important. Cash flow and liquidity is everything during a crisis. But we're more ready for that.” This is in part because leaders have a better grasp on what companies are likely to be at risk, Roper explained. “Now, we know who those critical suppliers are we have insight into our supply chain that we have ever had,” he said. For example, the small launch industry is one sector that Roper continues to keep a close eye on. “Small launch is still a big need for our industrial base for the Space Force and we want to try to try to do whatever we can to keep that market healthy,” he told reporters on July 14. Roper expressed some disappointment about OSD's July 1 decision to rescind a June-announced award of $116 million for six small launch companies: Aevum, Astra, X-Bow, Rocket Lab, Space Vector and VOX Space. He explained that OSD determined there “were some additional small business needs” that came up, because the small launch package was one of the last DPA approved actions, it was “the first to be put back in the batter's box.” “My hope is that whenever there's new Title III funding, or when resources free up due to other efforts not executing as planned, that those are the first to go back into the hopper. If I were asked today to put in one new Title III initiative, it's small launch,” he added. As Paul reported, Pentagon acquisition chief Ellen Lord on June 22 said she is seeking approval for a funding package request in the “lower double digit billions” from the White House to cover COVID-19 related costs, including paying for industry claims of supply chain and workforce reductions. And a group of CEOs from major defense primes, in a letter obtained by Breaking D, are asking for DoD help in seeking yet more COVID-19 stimulus funds from Congress. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/dod-needs-supply-chain-strategy-to-survive-future-crises-roper

The draft RFP for the Bradley replacement, out today, also opens the possibility for a government design team to compete with private industry. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM WASHINGTON: The Army is giving industry a lot of freedom in their designs for its future armored troop transport, letting them pick the gun, weight, number of passengers and more. But there's one big exception. While the current M2 Bradley has three crew members – commander, gunner, and driver – a draft Request For Proposals released today says that its future replacement, the OMFV, must be able to fight with two. Fewer humans means more automation. It's an ambitious goal, especially for a program the Army already had to reboot and start over once. The other fascinating wrinkle in the RFP is that the Army reserves the right to form its own design team and let it compete against the private-sector contractors. This government design team would be independent of any Army command to avoid conflicts of interest. If the Army does submit its own design, that would be a major departure from longstanding Pentagon practice. But the Army has invested heavily in technologies from 50mm cannon to automated targeting algorithms to engines, so it's not impossible for a government team to put all that government intellectual property together into a complete design. The Army has embraced automation from the beginning of the Bradley replacement program, and that's been consistent before and after January's decision to reboot. OMFV's very name, Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, refers to the service's desire to have the option to operate the vehicle, in some situations, by remote control – eventually. But an unmanned mode remains an aspiration for future upgrades, not a hard-and-fast requirement for the initial version of the vehicle scheduled to enter service in 2028. By contrast, the two-person crew is one of the few hard-and-fast requirements in the draft RFP released this morning. It's all the more remarkable because there few such requirements in the RFP or its extensive technical annexes (which are not public). Instead, in most cases, the Army lays out the broad performance characteristics it desires and gives industry a lot of leeway in how to achieve them. That's a deliberate departure from traditional weapons programs, which lay out a long and detailed list of technical requirements. But the Army tried that prescriptive approach on OMFV and it didn't work. Last year, in its first attempt to build the OMFV, the Army insisted that industry build – at its own expense – a prototype light enough that you could fit two on an Air Force C-17 transport, yet it had to be tough enough to survive a fight with Russian mechanized units in Eastern Europe. Only one company, General Dynamics, even tried to deliver a vehicle built to that specification and the Army decided they didn't succeed. So the Army started over. It decided heavy armor was more important than air transportability, so it dropped the requirement to fit two OMFVs on a single C-17; now it'll be satisfied if a C-17 can carry one. In fact, it decided rigid technical requirements were a bad idea in general because it limited industry's opportunity to offer ingenious new solutions to the Army's problems, so the service replaced them wherever it could with broadly defined goals called characteristics. And yet the new draft RFP does include a strict and technologically ambitious requirement: the two-person crew. Now, since the OMFV is a transport, it'll have more people aboard much of the time, and when an infantry squad is embarked, one of them will have access to the vehicle's sensors and be able to assist the crew. But when the passengers get out to fight on foot, there'll just be two people left to operate the vehicle. A two-person crew isn't just a departure from the Bradley. This is a departure from best practice in armored vehicle design dating back to World War II. In 1940, when Germany invaded France, the French actually had more tanks, including some much better armed and armored than most German machines. But a lot of the French tanks had two-man crews. There was a driver, seated in the hull, and a single harried soldier in the turret who had to spot the enemy, aim the gun, and load the ammunition. By contrast, most German tanks split those tasks among three men – a commander, a gunner, and a loader – which meant they consistently outmaneuvered and outfought the overburdened French tankers. A lot of modern vehicles don't need a loader, because a mechanical feed reloads automatically. But in everything from the Bradley to Soviet tanks, the minimum crew is three: driver, gunner, and commander. That way the driver can focus on the terrain ahead, the gunner can focus on the target currently in his sights, and the commander can watch for danger in all directions. A two-person crew can't split tasks that way, risking cognitive overload – which means a greater risk that no one spots a threat until it's too late. So how do fighter jets and combat helicopters survive, since most of them have one or two crew at most? The answer is extensive training and expensive technology. If the Army wants a two-person crew in its OMFV, the crew compartment may have to look less like a Bradley and more like an Apache gunship, with weapons automatically pointing wherever the operator looks. The Army's even developing a robotic targeting assistant called ATLAS, which spots potential targets on its sensors, decides the biggest threat and automatically brings the gun to bear – but only fires if a human operator gives the order. Now, industry does not have to solve these problems right away. The current document is a draft Request For Proposals, meaning that the Army is seeking feedback from interested companies. If enough potential competitors say the two-man crew is too hard, the Army might drop that requirement. The current schedule gives the Army about nine months, until April 2021, to come out with the final RFP, and only then do companies have to submit their preliminary concepts for the vehicle. The Army will pick several companies to develop “initial digital designs” – detailed computer models of the proposed vehicle – and then refine those designs. Physical prototypes won't enter testing until 2025, with the winning design entering production in 2027 for delivery to combat units the next year. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/omfv-army-wants-smaller-crew-more-automation/

Mark Pomerleau Government leaders are telling industry they need help with integration as the Department of Defense and individual services push toward a unifying approach to information warfare. Information warfare combines several types of capabilities, including cyber, intelligence, electronic warfare, information operations, psychological operations and military deception. On a high-tempo battlefield, military leaders expect to face against a near peer or peer adversary. There, one-off solutions, systems that only provide one function, or those that can't feed information to others won't cut it. Systems must be multi-functional and be able to easily communicate with other equipment and do so across services. “A networked force, that's been our problem for years. Having built a lot of military systems, a lot in C4 and mission command, battle command, we build them and buy them in stovepipes. Then we think of integration and connecting after the fact,” Greg Wenzel, executive vice president at Booz Allen, told C4ISRNET. “My whole view ... networking the force really is probably the best thing to achieve overmatch against our adversaries.” Much of this networking revolves around new concepts DoD is experimenting with to be better prepared to fight in the information environment through multi domain operations or through Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). The former aims to seamlessly integrate the capabilities of each domain of warfare – land, sea, air, space and cyber – at will. It also aims to integrate systems and capabilities across the services under a common framework to rapidly share data. While not an official program, JADC2 is more of a framework for the services to build equipment. “It's more likely a mish-mash of service level agreements, pre-scripted architecting and interoperability mandates that you got to be in keeping with those in order to play in the environment,” Bill Bender, senior vice president of strategic accounts and government relations at Leidos, told C4ISRNET of JADC2. “It's going to take a long journey to get there because, oh by the way, we're a very legacy force and ... a limited amount of technology has the interoperability that is absolutely required for that mission to become a reality.” The “information warfare” nomenclature can fell nebulous and hard to understand for industry officials that provide solutions to the Pentagon. “It's a pretty broad definition. I think it's something that the DoD is struggling with, that's what we're struggling with in industry and it also makes it challenging because no one really buys equipment that way,” Anthony Nigara, director of mission solutions for electronic warfare at L3Harris, said. “No one really buys stuff to an abstract term like information warfare.” Others agreed that the term “information warfare” may be too broad, an issue that's further complicated as each service tackles information warfare in their own way. Most members of industry C4ISRNET talked with on the need to integrate described the key theme of a more networked force as a unifying way to think about the new push to information warfare. “There's a lot of discussions about the Joint All Domain Operations or the multidomain operations. When we look at that and we want to say ‘okay, what is information warfare really mean to everyone?” Steven Allen, director of information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET. “We look at it as how can we get the right information to warfighters in order to fight or how do we get the right information for them to plan? How do we move all that data across whether it's different levels of security or different levels of the warfighting and the data associated with it.” Others expressed the need for contractors to be flexible with how DoD is describing its needs. “Industry has learned to be flexible in responding to messaging calling for new situational awareness capabilities while other established capabilities were being mandated for use in cyber exercises,” Jay Porter, director of programs at Raytheon Intelligence & Space, said. The push to a more information warfare-centric force under the guise of larger concepts to defeat adversaries is pushing the DoD as a whole to fight in a more joint manner. Paul Welch, vice president and division manager for the Air Force and defense agencies portfolio at Leidos, explained that there's a consistent view by the services and the department that they must integrate operations within the broad umbrella of activities called information warfare just as they're integrating warfighting capabilities between the services and across the domains. This goes beyond merely deconflicting activities or cooperation, but must encompass true integration of combat capabilities. Some members of industry described this idea as one part of convergence. “When I talk about convergence, my observation is there is a convergence in terms of of a family of technologies and of a family of challenge problems and how do they come together,” Ravi Ravichandran, chief technology officer of the intelligence and security sector at BAE, told C4ISRNET. Ravichandran provided five specific challenge problems the military may have in which a married suite of technologies can help provide an advantage against adversaries. They include JADC2, overmatch or the notion of assembling technologies in a way better than enemies, joint fires where one service's sensors may be acquiring a target and passing that target off to another service to prosecute it, sensing in the electromagnetic spectrum and strategic mobility to get forces and resources to a particular place at a particular time. Similarly, Welch provided the notional example of an F-35 flying over an area, seeing something on its sensors and sending that information to either an Army unit, a carrier strike group, a Marine Corps unit, or even a coalition partner to seamlessly and rapidly understand the information and act upon it. These sensors must be incorporated into a joint kill chain that can be acted upon, coordinated and closed by any service at any time. Allen noted that when looking at information warfare, his business is examining how to take a variety of information from sensor information to human information to movement information and pull it all together. “There's a lot of discussion on [artificial intelligence] AI and machine learning and it's very, very important, but there's also important aspects of that, which is hey what's the technology to help the AI, what's that data that's going to help them,” he said. “We tend to look very closely with the customers on how do we really shape that in terms of the information you're getting and how much more can you do for the warfighter.” By bringing all these together, ultimately, it's about providing warfighters with the situational awareness, command and control and information they need to make decisions and cause the necessary effects, be it cyber C4ISR, intelligence or electronic warfare, Nigara said. Porter said at Raytheon's Intelligence & Space outfit, they view information warfare as “the unification of offensive and defensive cyber missions, electronic warfare and information operations within the battlespace.” Integrating EW and IO with cyber will allow forces to take advantage of a broader set of data to enable high-confidence decision-making in real time, he added, which is particularly important in the multi-domain information environment to influence or degrade adversary decision making. From a Navy perspective, the ability to share data rapidly across a distributed force within the Navy's distributed maritime operations concept will be critical for ensuring success. “We will certainly have to include the mechanisms with which we share information, data and fuse that data from node to node. When I say node to node, a node may be a ship, a node may be an unmanned vehicle and a node may be a shore based facility,” Kev Hays, director of information warfare programs at Northrop Grumman, who mostly supports the Navy, said regarding areas Northrop is investing. “Linking all those participants into a network ... is critically important. We have quite a bit of technology we're investing in to help communicate point to point and over the horizon and a low probability of intercept and low probability of detection fashion.” Ultimately, the information space is about affecting the adversary's cognitive space, they said. “When it comes to information warfare, it's a lot less tangible ... It's not tank on tank anymore. You're trying to affect people's perception,” James Montgomery, capture strategy lead for information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET. As a result, he said, it is critical to take the time with the customer to truly understand the concepts and capabilities and how they all fit together in order to best support them. “Really spending time with them [the customer] and understanding what it is that they're attempting to get at. It helps us better shape the requirements but it also helps us better understand what is it they're asking for,” he said. “When you're moving forward and attempting to come together with both a software hardware based solution to something, it takes a lot of talking time and a lot of touch time with that customer to understand where their head's at.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/information-warfare/2020/07/19/whats-industry-role-in-dod-information-warfare-efforts

Airbus a annoncé le 10 juillet avoir formé avec 20 partenaires australiens le consortium «Team Nightjar» afin de pouvoir positionner son hélicoptère militaire H145M en Australie. Il s'agit de répondre aux besoins exprimés dans le projet Land 2097 Phase 4, visant à doter les forces spéciales australiennes d'une flotte d'hélicoptères multi-rôles de classe 4 tonnes. Parmi les membres de ce consortium figurent notamment, outre Airbus Helicopters, Safran Helicopter Engines Australia, QinetiQ Australia, Microflite, Kratos Australia et Cyborg Dynamics. «L'appareil bimoteur léger est une option éprouvée sur le plan opérationnel, abordable et à faible risque pour l'Australie, complétant le MRH90 Taipan par une mobilité et une connaissance situationnelle améliorées pour les opérations spéciales. En raison de sa taille compacte, le H145M sera optimisé pour les opérations en terrain urbain dense et sera rapidement déployable via un C-17A Globemaster», précise Airbus. Air & Cosmos du 17 juillet

Mark Pomerleau When it comes to the Army's contribution to a new joint architecture for battlefield command and control, the service said it will collaborate with industry in the very early stages. James McPherson, undersecretary of the Army, said during an AFCEA-hosted webcast July 14 that the service will ask industry for its input into potential solutions for Joint All-Domain Command and Control prior to writing and publishing official requirements. JADC2 is a new concept that seeks to connect sensors across the joint force to shooters making systems interoperable to share data, which officials believe will provide overmatch against sophisticated adversaries in a contested fight. The Joint Staff has created a cross-functional team to guide the military's efforts. “We're looking to really partner with industry in a different way rather than just passing a document over the transom saying: ‘Here's a requirement. Industry, can you meet this?' We want to take the transom down and have a conversation with industry and say: ‘Here are some of the characteristics we're thinking about — what are your thoughts?' ” McPherson said. “ ‘Here's the characteristics that we're looking for with regard to JADC2. Industry, how can you meet some of those characteristics? What other great ideas do you have, industry, to meet those characteristics? How do we turn those into requirements?' Then we turn that into a procurement document,” he added. McPherson said earlier that morning that the top echelons of Army leadership met to hammer out some of those characteristics. He also said the Army is brainstorming how to include coalition partners in this new architecture. “One of the pieces that the chief brought up is, you know, we're going to have to add a letter in front of JADC2, and that's combined. We need to start doing that,” McPherson said. “We need to start sharing, especially with our Five Eye[s] allies, but others as well ... what our concept of this battlefield of 2040 is going to look like and how we can partner with them in going forward with our data management and all things data in that future battlefield.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2020/07/16/army-wants-early-industry-input-on-jadc2-battlefield-concept/