Crooked Bough News Round-up

— PHOTOS: The sights of AFA 2024 Day 1

 

at 9/16/24 1:35pm

The crowd gathers for AFA 2024 in Washington, DC on Sept. 6, 2024. (Michael Marrow / Breaking Defense) AFA 2024 — Air Force leaders, servicemembers and industry officials gathered by the hundreds today here in Washington, D.C. for the start of the annual Air, Space & Cyber Conference. On the show floor, defense firms put their wares on display, hoping to catch the attention of warfighters and, as importantly, acquisition officials. Check out a few photos from the Breaking Defense team below, and see full coverage of the headlining news from the show HERE. Andurils Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) on display at AFA. (Valerie Insinna/Breaking Defense) GA-ASIs XQ-67A OBSS on display at AFA 2024 (Valerie Insinna/Breaking Defense) General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Incs CCA on display at AFA 2024 (Valerie Insinna/Breaking Defense) Blue Halo shows off a family of quadcopters to be used on mobile missions with its truck-based command post at AFA 2024. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) A couple aerial platforms from Europes MBDA on dsiplay at AFA 2024. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) A seat for getting out of Dodge, Martin-Bakers F-35 ejection seat is shown at AFA 2024. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) A model of Airbuss Arrow satellite playload at AFA 2024. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) Andurils Barracuda family of munitions at the companys stand at AFA 2024. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense)

[Category: Air Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Space, AFA Multimedia 2024, Air Force, Anduril, collaborative combat aircraft, cyber security, General Atomics, networks, Space Force, technology] [Link to media]

— ‘Partnership of convenience’: PACAF chief sees ‘potential limits’ in Chinese, Russian military ties

 

at 9/16/24 11:22am

Chinese Vice President Han Zheng meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vladivostok, Russia, Sept. 4, 2024. (Photo by Wang Ye/Xinhua via Getty Images) AFA 2024 — Despite China and Russias pledges of a “no limits” partnership and a “new era” of cooperation, the top US air commander in the Indo-Pacific isnt quite buying it, saying there do, in fact, appear to be limits and that its more akin to a partnership of convenience. “In terms of the exercises between [China] and Russia, I do see that there are potential limits to that cooperation,” Pacific Air Forces Commander Gen. Kevin Schneider said in a roundtable with reporters at the Air and Space Forces Association Air, Space and Cyber conference today. “Politically, it is unclear to me their long-term goals and objectives other than to counter what the United States and allies and partners are doing. He said he “would describe [their cooperation] a little bit more as a partnership of convenience, vice a deep-seated connection the way that we have a connection of values with our allies and partners.” In the time since declaring their partnership just prior to Russias invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Beijing and Moscow have sought to deepen military ties, with the West accusing China of being a “decisive enabler” in Russia’s ongoing war against Kyiv. Russia and China have since launched a joint, world-spanning military exercise that includes air and naval drills, which Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly said was underway “in the context of growing geopolitical tensions.” Schneider said today it’s too soon to offer assessments of the exercises and that full intelligence readouts would be available later. Beijings Aggression Holds Opportunities For US Outside the Moscow connection, one key US ally in the region, the Philippines, has also had to grapple with escalating tensions with China, most recently culminating in events like when Chinese vessels rammed Philippine ships. Echoing comments from Gen. Romeo Brawner, chief of staff of the Philippines armed forces, Schneider slammed Beijing’s alleged “illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive” activity that he said is conversely driving more countries to cooperate with the US. “Allies and partners around the region are seeing with incredibly clear eyes how these challenges, how these impingements on sovereignty, how these these attacks in the diplomatic and information space are affecting them,” he said. “More and more doors are being opened across the region and the world, as like-minded allies and partners continue to find opportunities to do more together.” Washington and Beijing recently wrapped the latest meeting of a regular security summit, where US officials have said they directly raise concerns on Chinese activity in the South China Sea, among other topics. Besides a run-in with the Philippines, which the US is treaty-bound to defend, officials have said they are concerned that China may attempt to invade Taiwan in the coming years, in turn inviting a US response.  Officials say open lines of communication like these talks offer a critical venue to lower the risk of conflict, though the Air Force’s top civilian warned today that the risk of war between the US and China only rises as Beijing’s military prowess grows.  “I am not saying war in the Pacific is imminent or inevitable. It is not.” said Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. “But I am saying that the likelihood is increasing, and will continue to do so.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Naval Warfare, AFA 2024, Air Force, Asia, China, Frank Kendall, Kevin Schneider, Navy, Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), Pacific Air Forces commander, philippines, Russia, south china sea, Taiwan] [Link to media]

— Return to Key West? Solving the DoD spacepower roles and missions debate

 

at 9/16/24 8:05am

U.S. Army and U.S. Space Force Spur holders and candidates pose for a photo after a Spur Ride at Fort Bliss, Texas, April 30, 2024. Spur Rides are a time-honored tradition in cavalry units throughout the U.S. Army and typically involve cavalry soldiers, though cavalry Soldiers welcome fellow U.S. servicemembers to the challenge when possible. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Nicholas Paczkowski) In recent weeks, several editorials and online comments have been traded regarding whether the Army should have its own space forces or whether all space forces should reside within the US Space Force. Emotions run high when military services fight over roles and missions, but it’s important to remember that these fights are part of a longstanding clash between services over capabilities. The good news is that there is a historical solution we can draw from in order to resolve the question which service should control what spacepower functions and capabilities: A new Key West agreement. In the late 1940s, then-Secretary of Defense James Forrestal directed that the Joint Chiefs meet in Key West, Florida, to work out the issues between the Navy, Army, and Air Force, or else, as he warned, “I shall have to make my own decisions.” This conference was necessary because the National Security Act of 1947, which had recently become law, created a separate Air Force pulled from the Army — but did not fully sort out whether the Navy’s air arm should be moved over as well. The Key West conference decided on keeping a naval air arm for fleet-related matters and maritime campaigns, and that the Air Force would lead most every other major airpower function, such as airlift and strategic bombardment. This arrangement, as imperfect as some may find it, has remained for the last seven decades. When the Space Force was established in 2019, circumstances were somewhat different than 1947. The guidance in law was very broad, the direction from the White House was not much clearer, and the budget and personnel numbers were and still are largely insufficient to organize, train and equip a Space Force as it was conceptualized by the president and a bipartisan group of members of Congress. Due in part to the compromise position that placed the new service within the Department of the Air Force, rather than in its own separate department, many of those in the Army and Navy who were open to transferring personnel and space systems to the new service changed that stance to one of opposition and protectionism. They perceived that additional funding for the Air Force and its increased influence in the Joint Chiefs meetings and in requirements forums was an existential threat. Thus, the Army, as one example, began to push for more resources and personnel while transitioning some capabilities to the new service. Now, the Army sees the need to do more with space to ensure it has the spaceborne effects needed for supporting land warfare. On the other hand, the Space Force’s strongest supporters argue that the Army should not be allowed to have any space forces of their own. To resolve this argument requires a Key West-type conference. And to ensure focus for the discussion, several foundational actions must be accomplished: First, identify the problems to be solved. Are they doctrinal, legal, policy, or technical? Should the Space Force be responsible for all in-space and from-space warfighting functions such as anti-satellite warfighting, while the Army or other terrestrial services control ground-based counterspace systems? These questions can be subjective to the services and even in sub-groups within the services. Second, what are the core space capabilities or space-derived effects that the Army, Navy, and Air Force believe are absolutely vital for them to control? The Space Force and its combatant command cousin US Space Command were created to address the threats in the space area of responsibility. As each service wants to have control over everything that touches their operating domain (air, land, sea), would a mixed approach be better than an “all in one basket” approach? Consensus on this question has critical implications for the organizing, training, and equipping functions as well as requirements for the combatant command itself. Third, what is the political landscape surrounding these topics, especially given that a new administration is coming in. One administration might believe that supporting the other military services should be the sole purpose of the Space Force, while others might believe that achieving space superiority is as vital to the nation as are air superiority and sea control. Knowing the views of the political masters is vital to the service chiefs knowing their boundaries in policy as they address this issue. Once these questions have been answered, preferably by policy guidance and direction from the White House (and preferably in partnership with Congress), then an agenda can be set to maximize the chances of an organizational construct for space that all of the military services can support. This issue needs to be resolved soon, and it needs to be hashed out at the highest level of military leadership so that the questions are sorted once and for all.  Adversaries are deploying weapon systems that target our critical space infrastructure. We cannot afford to be duplicative or otherwise distracted by inter-service squabbling. We instead must be unified to deter attack in space and to protect our vital critical space infrastructure. Christopher Stone is senior fellow for space deterrence at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies in Washington DC. He is the former Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy (2018-2019). The thoughts and opinions are those of the author and do not reflect the positions of the Department of Defense.

[Category: Pentagon, Space, AFA 2024, National Security Act, Op-Ed Commentary, Space Force] [Link to media]

— General Atomics is ready to rewrite the rules of airpower … again

 

at 9/16/24 6:25am

Artist rendering of GA-ASI’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Tough new threats to the U.S. Air Force and its allies mean air combat must evolve. Prospective adversaries are fielding more capable combat aircraft than ever and are also building more of them. Air superiority will remain central to national power, but the old American orthodoxy around it can’t keep up. Human-flown fighters are essential, but they’re also expensive and time-consuming to design and produce. Complicating the challenge is the need to recruit, train, and retain human pilots. Today, current-model fighter production in the United States is all but maxed out. Even a miraculous rain shower of new money—which isn’t in anybody’s forecast—could not build many more aircraft quickly or add many more pilots to result in a substantially larger fighter force soon. As for future-model fighter production, the defense establishment has balked at the cost, complexity, time, and even basic philosophy associated with a new platform. All this means that it’ll be years before the Air Force, the joint force, and international allies can field an exquisite new “sixth-generation” fighter. Daunting as these challenges are, the good news is that the Air Force and its partners have an answer: the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCA. The new school of air superiority These highly capable autonomous jets fly alongside, or far ahead, of traditional combat aircraft formations. They sense, communicate, and act just like traditional warplanes, but also in some ways that no previous class of aircraft could. Following months of test and evaluation, it’s clear that the strongest contender to become the U.S. and international CCA is the model offered by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. CCAs solve several problems at once. Because they’re smaller and don’t need onboard accommodations for a crew, they’re much less expensive per copy than a fighter. This—and the freedom from having to match every aircraft with at least one pilot—also means they can be put into large-scale production quickly. Large numbers of CCAs then can give “mass,” as military planners call it, to the U.S. and allied air forces—sheer numbers of aircraft that can outmatch hostile forces. This means the friendly aircraft sent to make first contact with hostile ones can be unmanned, keeping precious human pilots back from danger. It means air component commanders can take on more risk with those aircraft and those engagements. And it means that, in the event of a conflict, the U.S. Air Force and its allies and partners can quickly replace units lost to attrition—something that cannot be said about traditional fighters and certainly human pilots. The task now before the Defense Department, military services, and international allies is what specific Collaborative Combat Aircraft to produce. GA-ASI’s proven status as the leader in uncrewed aircraft makes it the obvious answer. Experience matters Having spent more than 30 years inventing, testing, proving, and operating unmanned systems, no one has more experience. The company has delivered more than 1,100 aircraft and built a fleet for U.S. and international users that has recorded more than 8 million flight hours, many of them in combat. Autonomous combat jets have been a big part of that experience. The company’s MQ-20 Avenger® has been operating since 2009 and contributed heavily toward Air Force and other programs that support operationalizing combat aircraft autonomy. GA-ASI has logged more than 37,000 hours of jet flights of every kind, including detailed air combat simulations, and the company has more than 1,000 software engineers dedicated to further refining the artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other systems that make these aircraft work. Most recently, the Air Force Research Laboratory commissioned GA-ASI to build the XQ-67A Off-Board Sensing Station, an unmanned jet that proves out many of the key concepts for new-generation aircraft. XQ-67A validates that an aircraft can be built from a highly producible common core, which enables not only high rates of production but great variation in models.   Think of the core like the base model of a vehicle used in automotive production. Factory workers build a steel cage, common chassis, and other components, and can then turn that into a family car or a luxury sedan, depending on customer orders. This lowers unit costs, speeds production, and provides greater choice for buyers. No other aerospace and defense manufacturer is poised to deliver a CCA as capable as the one built by General Atomics, or one as economical, producible, and flexible. This is important because the builder for this program must be able to deliver a high-performing aircraft at scale on time and on budget. Only a well-established manufacturer with deep expertise and active production could do so. GA-ASI is already ahead of its time. Another thing the Air Force must guard against are calls to turn CCA into an ever-fancier, ever-whizzier, ever-more-expensive boutique aircraft. Some in the aerospace world likely feel this type of platform gives them the advantage, but the risks are so great that it would put the Air Force right back where it started: not with agile mass for air combat but with a handful of silver bullets too precious to actually use—and unable to even the odds against prospective adversaries. When the city police department needs a new fleet of patrol cars, it doesn’t buy Lamborghinis. The virtue of CCA is that it can be good enough to get the job done for U.S. and international military forces, but also be practical and cost competitive. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., offers all that and is ready now to start delivering this new wave of aircraft, which will rewrite the rules of airpower.

[Category: Air Warfare, Sponsored Post, AFA 2024, Air Force, Air Force Research Lab AFRL, aircraft, collaborative combat aircraft, General Atomics AFA, MQ-20 Avenger, Presented by General Atomics GA-ASI, sponsored content, Unmanned, unmanned aircraft] [Link to media]

— Trust but verif-AI: Army will let genAI draft acquisition documents, with guardrails

 

at 9/16/24 5:20am

Members of the 56th Air and Space Communications Squadron at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam operate cyber systems at Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center, Alpena, Michigan, July, 12, 2021. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Amy Picard) WASHINGTON — Generative artificial intelligence startup Ask Sage recently announced it had deployed its genAI software to the Army’s secure cloud, cArmy. The press release touted a host of processes the new tech could automate, such as software development, cybersecurity testing, and even parts of the federal acquisition system — “to include drafting and generating RFIs, RFPs, scope of work, defining requirements, down-selecting bidders and much more.” That last litany of tasks may prove one of the most delicate the Department of Defense has yet asked algorithms to tackle in its now year-long and deeply ambivalent exploration of whats called genAI. Its also an area where both Ask Sage and the Army told Breaking Defense they will be watching closely, monitoring the effectiveness of several layers of built-in guardrails. Automating acquisition is an especially ambitious and high-stakes task. Protests by losing bidders are so common that program managers often build a three-month buffer into their schedules to account for a “stop work” order while GAO investigates. Flaws in official documents — such as the “RFIs [Requests For Information], RFPs [Requests For Proposal],  scope of work, [and] requirements” mentioned in the Ask Sage release — can lead to court battles that disrupt a program. And early experiments in using genAI for matters of law have been less than successful, with multiple lawyers facing sanctions after using ChatGPT and similar software for legal research only to have it “hallucinate” plausible but completely fictional precedents. RELATED: Pentagon should experiment with AIs like ChatGPT — but don’t trust them yet: DoD’s ex-AI chiefs The first and last line of defense, Ask Sage and Army officials said, is the human using the technology. But there are also algorithmic protections “under the hood” of the software itself. Instead of simply consulting a single Large Language Model (LLMs) the way ChatGPT does, Ask Sage uses multiple programs — not all of them GenAI — as checks and balances to catch and correct mistakes before a human ever sees them. “All contracts will still go through our legal process and humans will remain in the loop,” said the Army, in a statement from the office of the service Chief Information Officer to Breaking Defense following Ask Sages announcement last week. “We are exploring ways to use LLMs to optimize language in contracts [because] LLMs can analyze vast amounts of contract data and understand requirements for compliance with complex legal frameworks. This cuts down on the human-intensive work required to research and generate the language and, instead, uses LLMs to get to an initial solution quickly; then humans work with the LLMs to refine the output. The human workload can then focus on applying critical thinking.” The old arms-control principle of “trust but verify” applies, said Nicolas Chaillan, the former chief software officer of the Air Force, who left the service in frustration over bureaucracy in 2021 and founded Ask Sage in a burst of genAI enthusiasm just last year. “It’s always reviewed by a human,” he told Breaking Defense in an interview. “The human is going to read the whole thing.” RELATED: SOCOM acquisition chief: AI will be key to every single thing But anyone who’s ever mindlessly clicked “Okay” on pages of tedious privacy policies and user agreements knows very well that humans do not, in fact, always read the whole thing. AI ethicists and interface designers alike wrestle with a problem known as automation bias, in which everything from poor training to subtle perceptual cues — like highlighting a potential hostile contact in threatening red rather than cautionary yellow — can lead operators to blindly trust the machine instead of checking it. So Ask Sage does try very hard to build error correction, hallucination detection, and other safeguards into the software itself, Chaillan said. AI Checks And Balances First and foremost, Chaillan told Breaking Defense, the Ask Sage software doesn’t just consult a single Large Language Model. Instead, it’s a “model-agnostic” intermediary or “abstraction layer” between the human user and their data, on the one hand, and a whole parliament of different AI models — over 150 of them. “You don’t want to put all your eggs in one basket,” Chaillan said. “Were never getting locked into Open AI or Google” or any other specific “foundation model” developer, he said. “We can add models and even compare models and see which ones behave the best,” even picking different models as for different tasks. For some functions, there are also non-AI algorithms — old-school, predictable, determnistic IF-THEN-ELSE code — that doublecheck the AI’s work. “I always want to have .. those right guard rails — and it took way more than just genAI to solve,” Chaillan emphasized. “So its a mix of genAI with traditional code and special training of the models and guards rails to get to a right answer. You couldnt do it just with genAI.” “We make it self-reflect,” he said. “When it generates a piece of document, we then pass it again to another model to say, ‘Hey, assess this language. What could be the potential legal risks? Is this compliant and following the FARS and DFARS requirements?' “Its not just a ‘one pump and go’ like you do on Chat GPT, where you type a piece of text and you get a response,” he said. In fact, even the human input is constrained and formalized to prevent errors: “Writing an RFI is not just one prompt,” he went on. The software guides the user through a whole checklist of questions — what type of contract is best here? What’s the scope of work? How should we downselect to a winner? — before generating the output. That output can include not only the draft document, Chaillan said, but also commentary from the AI highlighting potential weak points where the algorithms were unsure of themselves. (That’s a far cry from the brazen self-confidence of many chatbots defending their errors). “They get a report before reviewing the document to say, ‘Hey, you should pay attention to these sections. Maybe this isnt clear,’” he said. “You give them a list of things that could be potential issues.” In fact, Chaillan argued, the AI is often better at spotting problems than human beings. For software development, “the code is actually better than it is when written by humans,” he said, “with the right models, the right training, and the right settings.” The software is even superior, he claimed, when it comes to parsing legal language and federal acquisition regulations — which, after all, are not only voluminous but written in convoluted ways no human brain can easily understand. “Humans can’t remember every part of the FARS and DFARS — and there’s conflicting things [in different regulations],” he said. “Ask 10 people, you’d get 10 different answers.”

[Category: Land Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, Air Force Chief Software Officer Nicolas Chaillan, Army, army cloud plan, Ask Sage, cyber security, generative artificial intelligence, large language models LLMs, networks, technology] [Link to media]

— Navy awards General Dynamics NASSCO contract worth up to $6.7B for 8 new fleet oilers

 

at 9/13/24 4:03pm

The John Lewis-class fleet replenishment oiler is designed and built by General Dynamics NASSCO. (Photo courtesy of GD NASSCO.) WASHINGTON — The Navy today announced it has awarded General Dynamics NASSCO a contract worth up to $6.7 billion for the construction of up to eight John Lewis-class fleet oilers, a block buy deal the service anticipates will save $491 million. Tom Rivers, executive director for amphibious, auxiliary and sealift for program executive office ships, told reporters the contract also extends an ongoing shipbuilding capability preservation agreement the Navy has with NASSCO meant to incentivize shipbuilders to seek out commercial work. The way this works is if NASCO is successful in getting the commercial work, the Navy will share some of the burden cost of overhead, he told reporters shortly after the contract announcement was published. What happens is NASSCO becomes more competitive, and then the Navy, by bringing in additional commercial work, reduces our overhead, so our costs will go down. He added that the statute dates back to the 1990s and has been in use with NASSCO for several years now, but the new contract extends the agreement into the mid-2030s. The service in 2016 awarded General Dynamics NASSCO a $3.2 billion contract for the design and construction of the first six ships of the John Lewis-class fleet oilers. Subsequently in 2022, the Navy bought two additional ships and then a third in 2023. With the addition of todays contract, the service will have agreements for up to 17 of the planned 20 ships in the class. Replenishment oilers carry jet fuel, diesel fuel and lubricating oil, and small quantities of fresh and frozen provisions, stores, potable water and other items, according to a Navy description of the Kaiser class, the legacy class of ships the newer vessels will replace. NASSCO is the San Diego-based shipbuilding arm of General Dynamics and is a staple Navy shipbuilder for various support and auxiliary vessels such as the John Lewis-class oilers and the expeditionary sea bases, as well as a ship repair yard. “We are pleased to continue building these ships, with seventeen of the Navy’s twenty-ship program of record now on contract. This will make the T-AO program the longest Navy production series in NASSCO history,” Dave Carver, president of General Dynamics NASSCO, said in a statement. “The NASSCO team is honored to continue working with our Navy customer and thankful for their unwavering support.” The Navys current class of replenishment oiler ships were first constructed and launched in the 1980s by Avondale Shipyards, an independent shipyard that was acquired by several larger firms over the years but ultimately closed in 2014.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Dave Carver, GD, GD NASSCO, General Dynamics, John Lewis-class, Navy, T-AGOS] [Link to media]

— State clears potential $4.1B KC-46 refuelers sale to Japan, $7.2B F-35 stealth fighters sale to Romania

 

at 9/13/24 3:03pm

A U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus, right, refuels a U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon, center, assigned to the 80th Fighter Squadron, over the Indo-Pacific, Oct. 22, 2023. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Karrla Parra) WASHINGTON — The US State Department today approved a possible $4.1 billion sale for up to nine KC-46A Pegasus tankers for Japan — a buy that would more than double Tokyo’s currently planned Pegasus fleet — as well as a potential sale of 32 F-35A stealth fighters for Romania at a price of $7.2 billion, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced today. While the Romanian F-35 deal has been long expected, Japans apparent interest in additional tankers comes as more of a surprise. Tokyo is already one of two international operators of the KC-46A, which is built by Boeing. Lockheed Martin manufactures the tri-variant F-35 and boasts an 18-member international customer base for the jet. The US Air Force is the largest customer for both platforms.  Both announcements, issued in the form of a congressional notification from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), are not final. Quantities and dollar totals often shift during negotiations, and these announcements essentially permit the acquisition process to move forward. And today’s announcements technically tee up an opportunity for lawmakers to block the buys within a 30-day period, though such a step would be unlikely in either case. The KC-46A sale to Japan would appear to greatly expand Tokyo’s aerial refueling capabilities, critical for extending aircraft ranges over the vast stretches of ocean in the Indo-Pacific. Besides the refuelers themselves, the sale would include up to 18 PW4062 engines made by Pratt & Whitney, along with associated subsystems and support equipment. The announcement does not say when the aircraft would be expected to be delivered.  A Boeing official, speaking on background, confirmed the potential sale of up to nine aircraft would add to six Pegasus refuelers already on contract with Tokyo, four of which have been delivered.  Boeing referred further questions to the Japanese Ministry of Defense and the State Department. The State Department similarly referred questions to the MoD, which did not immediately respond to an off-hours request for comment. Japan does not appear to have previewed such a large potential buy publicly, though The Wall Street Journal reported recently that it had put aside some $1.4 billion in its newest defense budget for new KC-46s. RELATED: Boeing defense programs to feel the pinch as Seattle-based union votes to strike For its part, Romania announced in April 2023 that it intended to buy the F-35, adding Bucharest to a burgeoning international network of Joint Strike Fighter operators. The sale cleared by State today is reportedly the first of two planned tranches, with a second order of 16 jets expected sometime in the future.  Romania, a NATO ally that borders Ukraine, previously said it was moving ahead with the purchase in a bid to deter Russian “aggression.” The sale announced today includes 33 F135 engines made by Pratt & Whitney, as well as associated support equipment, according to DSCA. The DSCA release did not include an expected delivery date, but the Romanian Ministry of National Defence has previously said the first aircraft should be delivered in 2030. 

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, AFA 2024, Air Force, Asia, Boeing, Europe, F-35, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Japan, KC-46, Lockheed Martin, Pratt and Whitney, Romania] [Link to media]

— Anduril moves its AI focus to the heavens, planning new space monitoring sats

 

at 9/13/24 2:20pm

Anduril intends to develop new space surveillance satellites, using its AI-powered Lattice software. (Illustration: Anduril) WASHINGTON — Defense startup Anduril Industries, perhaps most known for its artificial intelligence applications for drone warfare, is setting its sights farther up — using its own funds to develop new satellites for monitoring the heavens. In an announcement released today, Andurils Senior Vice President of Space and Engineering Gokul Subramanian said the company intends for the satellites to be launched by the end of 2025 — with the Space Force clearly the target market. Top brass from both the Space Force and US Space Command repeatedly have said that improved space domain awareness is a first-order priority. Anduril is looking to design multiple payloads, all based on its AI-powered Lattice software, the same platform used to power the counter-drone capabilities currently in use under the companys nearly $1 billion contract with Special Operations Command. Anduril will design, manufacture, and integrate modular mission payloads designed to enable unique mission requirements, leveraging our extensive expertise across imaging, electronic warfare, command and control, and mission autonomy. These payloads will provide warfighters with real-time data exploitation, autonomous coordination of satellites, and resilient communication capabilities, Subramanian said. The first launch will serve as a testbed for maturation of multiple Anduril and third party payloads which we will be announcing in the coming months, he added. Anduril quietly has been building experience in the space domain awareness arena. Subramanian explained that the company has multiple hardware and software payloads already deployed on orbit, and is delivering advanced systems that range from on-orbit edge processing of sensor data to resilient satellite command and control. Andurils new satellites also will build off of work in November 2022 to demonstrate the application of its Lattice software for communications with the radars and telescopes making up the militarys Space Surveillance Network. This expeditionary effort required multiple unique, site-specific software integrations that transformed the legacy SSN sites from a legacy system of communication to a resilient, high speed and integrated operational mesh network, the company said in a July 2023 press release. In addition, the release said, Andurils mesh network was used to restore the communications system of the Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) System site in Maui, Hawaii, following a severe Kona Low storm. GEODSS is a network of telescopes — three at each of three sites in the US and at US Pacific Command — operated by Space Force Delta 2 as part of the overarching Space Surveillance Network. The company also has extensive experience in developing cameras and infrared sensor systems for its drones and counter-drone systems, having announced in February a new family of passive, long-range sensors, called Iris, for missions such as infrared search and track, missile warning, and targeting.

[Category: Space, AMOS 2024, Anduril, Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODDS), space domain awareness SDA, Space Force, Space Surveillance Network SSN] [Link to media]

— False start? DoD IG ‘terminated’ NGAD next-gen fighter review, but may revisit down the road

 

at 9/13/24 1:21pm

A Boeing rendering of a next-gen fighter. (Boeing photo) WASHINGTON — The Defense Departments Inspector General has quietly shelved a review of the Air Forces high-profile Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter program after it emerged that the service wasnt actually as far along in development as Air Force chief Frank Kendall had suggested in public remarks. The odd saga started in June 2022 when Kendall made headlines in announcing that the NGAD program had already entered the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, kicking off intense speculation about which defense prime pulled in the lucrative contract. But on Sept. 19 that year Kendall reversed himself, saying he was only speaking in a colloquial sense to indicate the plane was in the design process. “I’ve been around doing this stuff for a long time, and I still think of engineering and manufacturing development as a phase in which you are working on the new design, he reportedly said at a Defense News conference earlier in September. Despite the walkback, later that month the DoD IG announced it was reviewing the program to determine the extent to which the Air Force demonstrated that the critical technologies used in the [NGAD] fighter aircraft were mature enough to enter into the EMD phase. The review was to involve site visits as necessary. But then a few months after that, sometime in 2023, the IG terminated the review because of other priorities at the time, IG office spokesperson Mollie Halpern told Breaking Defense this week. She added that “[t]he project will be reconsidered in the future.” An Air Force spokesperson referred questions about the review to the IG’s office. Whatever work was done during the review, it evidently didn’t get very far. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and service acquisition chief Andrew Hunter both told Breaking Defense at the RIAT air show in July that they were unaware of the IG’s review, adding that it had no impact on the recent decision to pause work on NGAD. “They’re doing a very quiet review,” Kendall quipped at the time. With NGAD Reevaluation, Northrop Sees Potential Window Like the review of the plane, the fate of the NGAD fighter itself has been thrown into doubt in more recent months as the Air Force has paused the program to reconsider its options. Kendall has maintained the Air Force will field a sixth-gen fighter, and possibly make it optionally manned. Budgetary constraints combined with fundamental questions about the fighter’s design — meant to perform across the vast stretches of the Indo-Pacific against sophisticated Chinese air defenses — have driven the service’s hesitancy, Kendall has said. Delays with the NGAD decision have now cast considerable doubt on the prospect of awarding an EMD contract this year, a goal the Air Force established in May 2023. The contest is thought to be between Lockheed Martin and Boeing after Northrop Grumman publicly pulled out. RELATED: As Air Force deliberates sixth-gen fighter plans, much is at stake for Boeing Still, the reevaluation of NGAD could present new opportunities, at least according to Northrop CEO Kathy Warden. At the Morgan Stanley Laguna conference on Thursday, Warden suggested that, based on what the Air Force does, Northrop may rejoin the fray. (Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop are all separately vying for a next-gen Navy fighter, with engine primes GE Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney actively competing in both Air Force and Navy efforts as well.) “The Air Force has taken a strategic pause on that program and are revalidating requirements and the path forward for it. If they determine that there will be a material change to the program, we would go back and reevaluate, just as we would any new opportunity, whether we think that it is a program that were well differentiated to perform, whether we view the business case as one that makes sense for a company and our investors, and we would look at new alternatives,” she said. “So were monitoring that one.” 

[Category: Air Warfare, Pentagon, AFA 2024, Air Force, Andrew Hunter, Boeing, Defense Department Inspector General, DoD Inspector General, f/a-xx, Frank Kendall, GE Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Navy, Next Generation Air Dominance NGAD, Northrop Grumman, Pratt and Whitney] [Link to media]

— Drones, China and lots of uniforms: What to expect at AFA 2024 [VIDEO]

 

at 9/13/24 12:04pm

WASHINGTON — Technically, fall doesnt begin until Sept. 22. But for those in the Air and Space Force community, the changing of the seasons gets officially underway on Sept. 16, when airmen and Guardians gather at National Harbor, Md., for the annual Air and Space Forces Association conference. Pack your finest suit, get in line for your Pumpkin Spice Latte and prepare for the conference by watching our video above, in which Breaking Defenses Aaron Mehta and Michael Marrow set the stage for the conference. And make sure to check out our landing page throughout the conference, as well have a large team on site bringing you the best stories from the event.

[Category: Air Warfare, Space, AFA Multimedia 2024, Air Force, Space Force, US Space Force, video] [Link to media]

— Boeing defense programs to feel the pinch as Seattle-based union votes to strike

 

at 9/13/24 11:59am

KC-46 under construction at Boeings factory. (Boeing) WASHINGTON — Boeing’s machinists union in Washington state voted to strike late Thursday evening, putting near-term deliveries of the KC-46 and P-8 military aircraft in limbo. Members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), which represents about 33,000 Boeing workers in the region, rejected a proposed deal that was endorsed by union leadership. Union members across the Seattle area, as well as some in Oregon and California, began striking at midnight local time. IAM said that 94 percent of its members voted to reject the contract, with 96 percent voting to strike. A two-thirds majority was required to strike. A strike at two of Boeing’s major commercial plane factories near Seattle threatens to plunge the company into further financial disarray as it grapples with a safety crisis that has hampered airplane production this year. The strike stops production of Boeing’s 737, 767 and 777 jetliners as well as military derivatives of those aircraft, which include the 737-based P-8 Poseidon maritime aircraft and the 767-based KC-46 tanker. “The tanker program is going to be impacted by the BCA [Boeing commercial airplanes] factory disruption and now work stoppage,” Boeing Chief Financial Officer Brian West said during the Morgan Stanley Laguna conference today. “That is going to flow through the tanker [production] rates, which is going to be more cost pressure [on Boeing’s defense unit].” Specifically, the strike could hamper Boeing’s ability to deliver 15 KC-46 tankers to the Air Force by the end of 2024, depending on the length of the work stoppage. Over the first half of the year, Boeing delivered three P-8s and five KC-46s, the company said in July. Boeing delivery data shows an additional two 767s were delivered to its defense unit in July for conversion into KC-46s for the Air Force. West said Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg is “already at work” to get an agreement that addresses workers’ concerns, and that the company is focused on conserving cash during the strike. “Kelly has been in Seattle all week getting first-hand information about the situation on the ground, and his priorities are to reset, reengage and rebuild,” West said. “So how that plays out, in terms of timetable that will be up to the union the bargaining table participants to decide upon, but our intent is to get back to table and try to get an agreement.” IAM headquarters will make “every resource available” to the local union groups now on strike, the union said in a statement. “We are incredibly proud of the hard work and dedication shown by the negotiating teams from District 751 and W24 and the unwavering solidarity of our membership,” the union stated. “Their tireless efforts have been on display throughout this entire process. Now, they will regroup and begin planning the next steps on securing an agreement that our membership can approve.” The Pentagon, Air Force and Navy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Strike Comes Despite Earlier ‘Reset’ Pledge Ortberg has sought to ameliorate the company’s relationship with its Puget Sound-area union, which deteriorated under the leadership of previous executives who publicly and sharply criticized the union in prior negotiations. Ortberg met with local IAM leaders shortly after taking the reins of the beleaguered company in August, pledging to “reset” relations with the machinists, Aviation Week reported then. On Sunday, Boeing and IAM leadership endorsed a deal that promised a 25 percent general wage increase, reduced health care costs, improved terms on retirement benefits and a promise to build the next commercial airplane in the Puget Sound area, if announced during the life of the contract. The agreement fell short of IAM’s original objectives, which included boosting wages by 40 percent and reinstating Boeing’s pension plan, which was cut in 2014 in order to assure 777X production in Puget Sound. Analysts were optimistic that the backing of IAM’s leadership would get the deal over the finish line, but it quickly became clear that rank and file membership was not supportive. On Monday, IAM 751 President Jon Holden told the Seattle Times that he expected members to reject the contract and vote to strike. “We have achieved everything we could in bargaining, short of a strike,” Holden said in a message to union members posted to the organization’s website on Monday. “We recommended acceptance because we cant guarantee we can achieve more in a strike. But that is your decision to make and is a decision that we will protect and support, no matter what.” In a Wednesday letter to the workforce, Ortberg said a strike would put Boeing’s recovery in jeopardy, calling it a path “where no one wins.” “I know the reaction to our tentative agreement with the IAM has been passionate,” he said. “I understand and respect that passion, but I ask you not to sacrifice the opportunity to secure our future together, because of the frustrations of the past.” Depending on the length of the strike, the work stoppage in Seattle could further squeeze margins at Boeing’s defense unit, which West said are expected to be negative again in the third quarter, with financial performance on par with the previous quarter when the company booked $527 million in losses. West said the results were a “disappointment” and driven by cost pressures in two areas. First, the costs of winding down F/A-18 Super Hornet production and ramping up F-15EX production is proving to be more expensive than previously estimated. Cost overruns on fixed-price development programs — long a bane of Boeing’s defense earnings — also continue to be a problem, with West calling out “development hurdles” on the Air Force’s T-7 trainer and Navy’s MQ-25 tanker drone. Based on the duration of previous strikes, it is “realistic” to assume that the current strike will last about 50 days, ending before the strike fund runs low ahead of the holiday season, Cai von Rumohr, an aerospace analyst with TD Cowen, wrote in a note to investors earlier this week. A strike of that length would cost Boeing about an estimated $3.5 billion in cash flow. Ron Epstein, an aerospace analyst for Bank of America and a former Boeing engineer, said that while previous strikes have hovered around the 60-day mark, last year’s strike at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems could offer a precedent for a much more rapid negotiation — one that could end in as little as a week. “We see it likely Boeing would have to make further concessions and move closer to the IAMs initial proposal of 40 [percent] wage gains,” Epstein said in the note to investors this morning.

[Category: Air Warfare, Pentagon, Air Force, Boeing, Brian West, business, Business & Industry, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), KC-46, Kelly Ortberg, labor, P-8 Poseidon] [Link to media]

— Outgunned, outranged: The Ukraine war illustrates where fires modernization is needed

 

at 9/13/24 11:20am

ARTEC RCH 155 automated artillery firepower with shoot-on-the-move capability. Photo courtesy of KNDS. It’s not often that anyone would think of the U.S. as being outgunned in this day and age, but in the realm of artillery it’s likely true. While most NATO countries, much of Europe, and near-peer adversaries like Russia and China went to longer L52 cannon barrels years ago that provide greater range, the U.S. Army still uses and only manufactures the smaller L39 barrel that provides what can only be called “last-generation” capability for 155mm field guns. The Ukraine war has made it clear that less artillery range is always going to be a losing proposition against an adversary with longer-range firepower. “The U.S. field artillery fleet has been an L39 caliber length tube based cannon system for the last 60 years.” said Jon Milner, director of business development, Weapon and Ammunition, American Rheinmetall Defense. “NATO and most of the world moved on to L52 length 155mm systems two decades ago because an L52 can shoot further than an L39. Thats where the U.S. is literally outgunned and outranged by allies and adversaries.” This isn’t to say, though, that the U.S. Army hasn’t made significant investments and strides in fires modernization. The first increment of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is being developed to replace the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System. The service is also introducing the Mid-Range Capability, also known as Typhon, to strike targets with SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles at ranges from 300-1,725 miles that aren’t covered by PrSM and under-developmental hypersonic missiles. Rocket artillery has also enabled important advancements in precision strike, but lacks in mass. The Army has invested in advancing cannon projectiles and has gained significant advances in longer range solutions as seen with the XM1113 and XM1155 programs. But even with these important programs, tactical fires modernization continues to lag behind the threats. In one prominent example, earlier this year the Army canceled the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) program, keeping the M1299 self-propelled 155mm howitzer prototype an S&T effort. This has left the Army with an enduring, and problematic gap in its extended range tactical fire solutions, exacerbated by the fact that legacy artillery systems had already fallen behind our allies and adversaries. And there’s an additional challenge – the Army artillery fleet had also shrunk. “In addition to the smaller caliber of the cannons in the Army’s existing fielded systems, the U.S. has not kept up with the threat in increasing the number of artillery units,” noted Milner. “Since the Cold War, the U.S. has shrunk the artillery corps significantly, while our pacing threats, China and Russia have only increased their artillery number alongside giving it cannons with more range than U.S. systems.” Closing gaps in tactical fires can potentially be accomplished more quickly and cost effectively by following a time-honored acquisition method right out of the program-management playbook that calls for adopting rather than adapting systems that are already in production – and adopting a common moniker used since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, “buy Allied.” Filling the Fires Capability and Capacity Gaps Army Futures Command Concept for Fires 2028 has validated the need to move away from certain existing systems in the arsenal that “lack sufficient capacity, lethality, and range to deter and defeat peer threats.” The report went on to state: “Peer threats have already demonstrated the ability to organize a highly effective fires complex (UAS, rocket artillery, and IADS) to detect targets, mass fires, and protect themselves. Enhanced threat capabilities will enable engagement of friendly fire support elements at standoff weapon ranges, precluding or pre-empting friendly fire support operations.” The U.S., Ukraine, and NATO also must have the capability to operate fires from standoff distances. Most NATO and European countries already have certain standoff ability because they all employ 52-caliber cannons, as mentioned. That leaves only U.S. systems with L39 barrels vulnerable due to their limited range. “The term the Army uses is that our tactical fires lack capability and capacity,” said Michael Milner, vice president for business development and strategy, American Rheinmetall Vehicles. “The capability is the range that we can fire and the capacity is the number of rounds we can put down range in a given amount of time. “No one in the rest of the world wants or is buying a 39 caliber capability. Of course, Ukraine will take what it can get. Anything we can give Ukraine is good. However, what that means for the Ukrainians who have to operate these L39 U.S. systems is that for the guns to be able to range the enemy, they will always have to be in range of the enemy’s artillery. This is not the equation we want for our ally Ukraine in this fight nor for American Soldiers in any fight we might have in the future.” That’s arguably one of the most glaring tactical gaps in U.S. fires, and one that’s also tailor made for acquisition by adoption. In the case of artillery, adopt means acquiring a system that’s already in production and being fielded. There will be certain straightforward integration elements necessary such as different radios or fire control systems like Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS). What you want to avoid though, is the adaption of that system, e.g., changing a fundamental architectural element such as adding armor, which increases weight and could require a new suspension, or inserting a different cannon. “Adapting rather than adopting a proven system takes you from an off-the-shelf system to something that becomes bespoke and will take time, money, and effort to get it to where it’s what you need,” said Michael Milner. “The priority, on the other hand, is rapidly fielding capability, which is what the Armys looking for with its desire to get capability into the field by 2030 that meets as much of the ERCA requirements as possible.” Achieving ERCA requirements requires not only an improved armament but the ability for heightened self-protection through mobility and self-propulsion, as well as automation of the firing system. Today’s advanced self-propelled, automated systems can fire eight to nine rounds per minute and then pick up and move immediately. Before the first rounds even hit the ground, that vehicle is moving to another location before the enemy can pick up the firing on radar and launch counter fires. “This also plays into the new capability of battlefield drones where youre under persistent surveillance,” said Michael Milner. “If you pick up an enemy drone, you’ve got to be able to move quickly. Current U.S. towed systems lack that capability because once the towed system is in place, it takes about a minute and a half to two minutes to get it moving while youre sitting there stationary.” A survey of artillery systems around the world shows several existing systems that could fit the bill and fill the gap, including the PzH 2000 and RCH 155 from KNDS Deutschland (formerly Krauss-Maffei Wegmann). Both are equipped with Rheinmetall’s combat proven, world-class main armament L52 artillery cannon. Both would also fill the Defense Department’s gap for a self-propelled 155mm howitzer with improved range, survivability, technology, and firing rates. Given the scale such a program would take on, the DoD would be expected to want such systems built in the U.S., but that would take several years at a minimum to stand up the factory and supply chain – leaving the capability gap in place for longer than defense leaders want. There’s a way, however, to both build them domestically and also start receiving and fielding them years sooner. “U.S. Army leadership has said they are willing to accept a foreign-built system for the first two years of production and then it has to be moved onshore,” said Michael Milner. “That third year of production, you have to have a facility and supply chain established, transition all the intellectual property to U.S. shores, and bring that cannon capacity, vehicle capacity, and artillery gun module capacity into the United States. “Thats no problem for American Rheinmetall; thats already an approach built into our business model,” he said. American Rheinmetall has the ability to design and build in the U.S., as it is doing for the turret on its XM30 Combat Vehicle which was 100 percent designed domestically by Rheinmetall’s U.S. engineers and being built in the U.S. It also has the ability to quickly receive a transfer of technology from its European parent and partners and execute localization of supply chains, production, and design updates inside the U.S. The same approach can help the Army not just in rapidly fielding a new ERCA capability, but for adding critical capability to its substantial M109A7 self-propelled howitzer fleet. American Rheinmetall, with key partners, can provide for 52 caliber cannon insertion in the M109A7, which would remove the out-gunned nature of these important systems and also bring valuable commonality in the cannon system if an ERCA solution like the RCH 155 were adopted. Rheinmetall and BAE developed just such an Independent Research and Development (IRAD) M109A7 L52 demonstrator, which the team test fired last year, showcased at AUSA 2023, and has a robust fall live fire schedule planned. Rheinmetall has, in fact, moved manufacturing capabilities to customer locations multiple times, including in Australia and Hungary where Rheinmetall took the opportunity to build state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities to support those nations needs. Said Michael Milner, “Compare that to how it’s done here where we are still building combat vehicles very similar to how we did in World War II.” The production of U.S. cannons is currently at a state that can be considered a single point of failure. The only U.S. capability for producing ground forces/Army and Marine Corps cannons today is at Watervliet Arsenal, NY. The Army is in the process of modernizing the facility, however, with the addition of the L52 cannon into the U.S. fleet, capacity is an issue. Rheinmetall, as the world’s premier supplier of L52 cannons is ready to apply their successful approach to localizing cannon production to augment Watervliet’s capability issue and fill the gap of capacity. Innovation at the round: Assegai V-LAP and Extended Range Charge for L39 and L52 systems. Image courtesy of American Rheinmetall. Innovation at the round Another reason to adopt is so the U.S. and others can take advantage of the latest innovations at the round. This was also one of the outputs of the tactical fires study from Army Futures Command. It’s an area where Rheinmetall, a global leader in large caliber munitions technology, is always working to evolve projectiles and propellants so operators can squeeze more range out of their systems – whether they’re L39 or L52 based – and includes portfolio munitions like the Assegai Velocity-enhanced Long range Artillery Projectile (V-LAP), DM92 propellant, and extended range charge. The Assegai family of 155 projectiles is ballistically matched so all the projectiles behave the same and are state-of-the-art for long range. Assegai V-LAP set world records during a 2019 test for ranges at well beyond 70 kilometers. The DM92 propellant, which is the current propellant for the German Army and its PzH 2000 fleet, is tuned for the Rheinmetall L52 barrel. If the U.S. adopted that caliber and integrated the L52 on the M109 or in its ERCA program, there’s a ready, high performing propellant that can be adopted by the U.S. for that purpose. Rheinmetall has also qualified an extended range charge, the Supercharge, for several howitzers, including the Australian M777. The Supercharge allows operators to fire at longer ranges from the L52 cannon and adds 10 percent longer range from the L39 cannon. It was developed to “buy back” the drag – the penalty that happens when using course-correcting fuzes, which are important for armies and precision fires. Additionally, the Supercharge is extremely clean burning and leaves little residue in the barrel which assists in extending the life of the barrel. Strengthening the Defense Industrial Base to close the gaps “American Rheinmetall is a committed partner for the U.S. Army, fully focused on their field artillery requirements and localizing next-gen technology,” said Jon Milner. “U.S. Cannoneers have been pulling lanyards and swabbing breaches since the Revolutionary War, and it’s time to get beyond that paradigm. “The RCH 155 and M109-52 along with Rheinmetall’s family of ammunition provide real modernization solutions adoptable now to restore tactical fires overmatch, enhance the U.S. industrial base including bringing new jobs and capability, and delivering fast by sequencing delivery of proven systems from an allied base and then effectively and rapidly transitioning the technology and its production into the U.S. This is a proven capability at Rheinmetall.”  

[Category: Land Warfare, Sponsored Post, ammunition, Army, artillery, DOD, Gamechanger, Gamechanger Rheinmetall, Presented by Rheinmetall, Rheinmetall, sponsored content, Ukraine, Ukraine conflict] [Link to media]

— The Army doth protest too much: In Space, jointness must come first

 

at 9/13/24 10:11am

Col. Mark Cobos, commander, 1st Space Brigade, US Army Space and Missile Defense Command, thanks Chief of Space Operations US Space Force Gen. Chance Saltzman and Chief Master Sgt. of the Space Force John F. Bentivegna for visiting the brigade headquarters at Fort Carson, Colo., April 10. (US Army photo by Dottie White) Our Aug. 13 op-ed on the Army’s overreach to create a new space career field and expand its space control capabilities struck a surprising chord, and generated a robust and frankly overdue debate about the Army’s role in space. After reading the Army’s formal rebuttal, visiting soldiers doing space missions, and having many conversations with members of the US Space Command, our takeaway is clear: The need to clearly understand the distinctions in roles and functions of the various services and combatant commands is foundational to the success of joint operations, and the conversation around the Space Force and its relationships needs to continue for all stakeholders to really understand each other’s stances. In our discussions since our first op-ed, we have concluded that there are three broad reasons behind the Army’s desire to increase its organic space expertise and capabilities. While these may make sense from a pure Army perspective, it does not they fit into the integrated warfighting construct now being pushed by top Pentagon leaders, who understand that joint collaboration is the best way to maximize effectiveness and efficiencies to win. First, the space missions are just the latest in a pattern of Army actions stemming from what appears to be deep-seated mistrust of other services providing tactically relevant cross-domain support. This sentiment goes back decades and spans multiple military functions. This is why the Army maintains its own uninhabited aerial vehicles for its own “organic” use, of the same class that the Air Force operates for joint force application. This is also why the Army is now spending over $990 million on long-range fixed-wing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft. At the heart of these efforts is the desire to maintain control. The underlying mindset seems to be that if the Army doesn’t directly control it, they can’t trust it to deliver their desired effects. While it is understandable that an Army commander would feel this way, this is the antithesis of joint integration at a time when no one service will ever fight by itself. The second major factor is money, and maintaining funding priority in a new warfighting environment. This is clearly the case with the Army’s pursuit of very long-range, theater-capable hypersonic missiles (at over $50 million a shot) in response to China becoming the Department of Defense’s “pacing” threat. Over two decades following 9/11, the Army received $1.3 trillion more than the Air Force, largely thanks to the focus on counter-insurgency operations. Given the nature of the threat and the priority to our nation, this was a justified expenditure. As the preponderance of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army used these funds for missions critical to our defense strategy at the time. They also used this money to modernize their equipment across the entire Army. But this was not without negative impacts to the other services. A 2022 Mitchell Institute paper describes how other services that were the source of the funding for the Army severely atrophied. As our nation and its military’s attention now shift to China, the relative priority and corresponding funding should likewise shift from the Army back to the Air Force, Space Force, and Navy, to reflect the preponderance of forces that will be involved in a China fight. Third, there is a breakdown in the joint lexicon for space missions and functions. For example, the Army states its systems are for space control, to “interdict” adversary use of space against their soldiers in combat, as a service-unique requirement. But all service components that comprise a joint task force require protection from adversary space-enabled attacks. This is, in fact, a key element of space superiority and the central role of the Space Force, along with the continued delivery of capabilities and effects such as missile warning, satellite communication, space-based environmental monitoring, and position, navigation, and timing. The Space Force must secure our nation’s ability to deliver space capabilities and effects while denying the same to adversaries. The Army component of a joint task force—just like every other service component—may have requirements to interdict adversary use of space, but national leaders must clearly understand that space interdiction is simply a facet of space superiority. Trying to achieve it piecemeal would be like trying to achieve localized air superiority with fighters assigned to Army units—it doesn’t work. The current Army rationale is anachronistic when today, the Space Force and US Space Command are now assigned and responsible for performing this mission. Modern War Requires A Modern Joint Construct A long-standing mistrust of joint operations, improper budget prioritization, and terminology that is confusing and outdated is a recipe for failure against a peer adversary like China. The Department of Defense must take steps to better align and synchronize joint efforts if initiatives like Combined Joint All Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) and the delivery of overwhelming cross-domain effects are to be realized. The following suggestions are aimed at increasing collaboration and ensuring future joint and coalition operations have the tools and skills to win against any adversary. 1) Most simply, all services should develop new space capabilities consistent with existing joint processes. Right now, that means the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee must validate an existing requirement. Then an analysis of potential non-materiel solutions must conclude that a materiel solution will be necessary to adequately address the requirement. Finally, the Space Acquisition Council must then determine which material solution(s) are necessary and which service will lead the efforts. As the DoD lead for space integration, the Space Force, through the Space Acquisition Council, must have a leading role in defining the integrated space architecture. Once fielded, regardless of the service operating the system, US Space Command must centrally coordinate space superiority effects. This approach ensures the appropriate allocation of taxpayer dollars, synchronizes operations, and avoids unintentional redundancy. 2) Additionally, all services must prioritize the execution of their existing assigned responsibilities that are critical for joint force operations over those that are parochial. For example, the Army is responsible for base defense and must deliver an effective suite of air and missile defense capabilities essential for all the service component requirements for future conflict. This is an Army mission, and they should fund it. Failing that, the other services should be funded to field active defense systems for their forward operating bases, and the Army budget reduced accordingly. 3) The Department of Defense should conduct a review of existing service and joint publications to ensure doctrine, policy, and organizational roles and responsibilities are consistent with service core missions and appropriate joint agreements. Previous updates conducted immediately after the stand-up of the Space Force had accelerated timelines and happened during a period when the Space Forces presence in the Pentagon was woefully understaffed. Now five years later, it is time to reassess these documents to ensure they accurately reflect the relationships and responsibilities of all services as they relate to space missions. Guardians assigned to the Pentagon, on the Space Force Staff, Joint Staff, or Office of the Secretary of Defense Staff, should scrutinize the language in policy and ensure service equities are properly addressed. 4) To improve cohesion and trust, the DoD should ramp up joint and coalition exercises and training events that specifically address the role of space operations. It takes practice and repetition to develop trust and refine the operational and tactical effectiveness of joint and coalition operations. When possible, these exercises should employ live jamming and coordination of joint fires to increase realism and refine employment tactics, techniques, and procedures. 5) Congress must ensure the resources and organizations within the Department of Defense are consistent with the spirit and intent of the guidance that created the Space Force and US Space Command. Congress should review joint space programs to verify the DoD is developing them with joint operations in mind and that they have followed the appropriate processes to ensure the most effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. 6) The current overlap in perceived service roles in space operations with the Space Force is reason enough for Congress to direct the establishment of a commission, independent from the Department of Defense, to conduct a review of service roles and missions. The last such commission conducted this kind of review in 1994/95, well before the standup of the Space Force. While longstanding agreements should remain in place, new functions and authorities related to space and cyber would benefit from an updated evaluation and agreement. These are dangerous times. Organizing the DoD to ensure the United States is prepared for future challenges is vital. The discussion on Army overreach highlights the need to properly steward our nation’s resources to maximize effectiveness and lethality in a fiscally responsible and coordinated manner. There is undoubtedly a role for the Army and all services when it comes to space security. However, the DoD must identify and develop these approaches in a deliberate and coordinated manner, not passively allowing the services to independently and parochially pursue what only they determine is necessary for their own service component purposes. Charles Galbreath is a retired United States Space Force Colonel, a Command Space Operator with expertise in Missile Warning, Space Control, Space Launch, and ICBM operations, and a Senior Materiel Leader with experience developing advanced technology demonstration and prototype systems. Jennifer Reeves is a retired United States Air Force Colonel with almost 29 years of active duty, finishing her career as the Chief of the Air Force’s Engine Room, leading the service’s Program Objective Memorandum (POM) build. Immediately prior to joining the Mitchell Institute, Reeves worked for a non-traditional government contractor focusing on creating purpose-built software applications to assist in decision-making in the POM build process. Both are Senior Resident Fellows for Space Studies at the Mitchell Institute.

[Category: Land Warfare, Pentagon, Space, AFA 2024, Army, Op-Ed Commentary, Space Force, SPACECOM] [Link to media]

— Aussie military inks contracts for quantum clocks to aid ‘maritime domain awareness’

 

at 9/13/24 8:45am

LANDFORCES — The Australian military has awarded a physics startup two contracts for a quantum clock designed to provide greater accuracy and a week or more of GPS coverage if conventional GPS is jammed or attacked. The deals, announced here this morning, mean Australia will buy QuantX Labs quantum optical atomic clocks to support superior decision advantage and enhanced maritime domain awareness for the Australian Defense Force, an ADF statement said. The head of operations for QuantX, Sandy Sinclair, said the announcement of the $2.7 million ($1.8 million USD) in deals is worth writing about because its the first demonstration of quantum technology under AUKUS Pillar II. ​The ADF statement carefully notes that these are key objectives under AUKUS Pillar II, but it does not claim that they are being done as part of the second pillar, which focuses on a range of advanced technologies, including quantum, artificial intelligence and autonomy. “Defense will increasingly leverage emerging disruptive technologies such as quantum to provide a capability edge for the warfighter,” Chief Defence Scientist Tanya Monro said in a statement. “This is the first sale for QuantX Labs and a prime example of the collaborative relationships needed to transition leading-edge sovereign research into advanced operational capabilities for the Australian Defence Force.” Last year, the US Air Force Research Laboratory, the US Navy, and foreign partners from the Five Eyes alliance collaborated to test quantum tech at sea during the annual Rim of the Pacific exercises. Few details were released at the time. The portable atomic clocks are the result of more than seven years of research and development at the Institute of Photonics and Advanced Sensing at the University of Adelaide. So were offering very similar performance to a hydrogen maser, which already exists, but in a much smaller form factor, Sinclair told Breaking Defense. We will be accelerating that performance over the next couple of years in future iterations of the clock to a much better performance. QuantXs clock uses a laser on rubidium molecules, targeting one to excite it and then the physics package emits a persistent radio frequency signal. ​Testing for the tech, the ADF statement said, will focus on operational resilience in global positioning systems (GPS) degraded environments. In the event of attacks on the GPS network the Quantx clock should be able to provide signals for a week or more, Sinclair said. Militaries the world over have been racing to find alternatives to GPS, assuming that in the next conflict theyre be operating where GPS is unavailable, whether naturally or due to enemy interference. ​The box containing the clock and its lasers will be part of a mobile test and measurement system, delivered in early 2025. The size of the clock is a major part of the companys success. Theyve reduced it to the size big enough for four servers and it will soon, Sinclair said, shrink to only three server slots in size.

[Category: All Domain, Land Warfare, Naval Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Army, Asia, australia, cyber security, GPS, GPS jamming, Land Forces 2024, Navy, networks, Position Navigation and Timing PNT, quantum, quantum timing, technology] [Link to media]

— ‘Biggest thing … for years’: Industry eagerly awaits next phase of Australian Army network contract

 

at 9/13/24 7:40am

Project Currawong SATCOM trailer. (Boeing Australia) LANDFORCES — Multiple industry players appear to be positioning themselves here in Australia for what one executive called the biggest thing in town regarding comms — and will be for years to come.” The Australian military is expected to begin the competition to pick a winner for what some in industry believe will be a contract worth hundreds of millions to build and maintain the Armys new battlefield communications network early next year. Boeing Australia, builder of the Currawong tactical radio program, believes it has the inside track to win what is called Land 4140 because of that experience. But Boeing is not uncontested. It is a program we are tracking closely, a Hanwha Defense Australia spokesperson said today. Executives here were closed lipped about the program, but the Australian arms of L3Harris, Leidos and Lockheed Martin are all believed to be similarly tracking the program. The Australian military released a request for information related to Land 4140, also known as the Land C4 Modernisation Project or the LC4 Program, in June 2022, saying it will modernise and enhance Land C4 systems in order to deliver decision-making superiority and improve the Command and Control, intelligence, sensors, and weapon system effectors, essential for the conduct of Joint Land Force operations. Earlier this week the military requested that defense firms raise their hand if theyre interested in Tranche 1 of the project, and said they expect the delivery timeframe for the tech to run from 2025 to 2030. The acquisition approach appears different from standard Australian programs where a prime contractor would design and build the system. Eager to ensure the software-heavy communications system would be regularly upgraded to cope with new cyber and electronic warfare threats, the government wants what it is calling a program integration partner. It would be supplemented or augmented by at least one panel that apparently would approve the upgrades. Boeing executives, clearly hopeful they might win based on their Project Currawong work, spoke with reporters here about the program. So theyre looking for a company that has the pedigree, the relationships, the right behaviors, the right experience, the right capabilities to partner with them over the next 10 years to help them effectively build the next generation of networks, Darcy Rawlinson, a senior IT and cyber executive at Boeing Australia. It will be a challenging venture, according to the scope Rawlinson described. Its all the communications that army needs, from the forward rifleman, whos walking around carrying his pack, whos really just talking on a radio right the way through to a big Joint Task Force headquarters with heaps of people in it, a field hospital with big logistics sort of node — everything thats deployed, he said. The executives who spoke with Breaking Defense made it clear the program is still evolving. The formal request for tender, when companies will have to decide whether to bid and how, is scheduled for the second quarter of 2025.

[Category: Global, Land Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Army, Australian Army, Boeing Australia, C2 networks, cyber security, Hanwha Defense Australia, L3 Harris, Land 4140, Land Forces 2024, Leidos Australia, networks, technology] [Link to media]

— Take off ‘handcuffs’ and make DoD information technology buying more ‘agile,’ DISA official says

 

at 9/13/24 6:25am

The US and China are in a technology arms race. But which side has the best path forward? (Wong Yu Liang/Getty Images) WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense must streamline its information technology procurement and acquisition policies if the US wants to stay ahead of its adversaries in coming years, according to John Hale, the chief of cloud services at the Defense Information Systems Agency.  With the current policies, the DoD has to plan its budget so far in advance that it has trouble being flexible and adaptable to new technologies, Hale said during a General Dynamics Information Technology event Thursday. “We still buy IT as if it was a weapon system. You have to do your planning and your budget cycles in such a way that dont really facilitate agile capabilities,” he said. “It’s September of 2024. I just submitted my budget for 2026, and in that budget I had to submit my five year plan. So not only did I submit my budget for 2026, I had to also plan what I was going to spend all the way through to 2031. “In todays world with with how rapid things are changing and how agile technology and capabilities are, those are the handcuffs that were playing against,” he added.  RELATED: Pentagon lacks comprehensive strategy for buying AI tech, GAO warns Speaking to Breaking Defense on the sidelines of the event, Hale emphasized his concerns around falling behind China and other adversaries because the US’s current defense procurement and acquisition policies don’t account for unknown emerging technologies.  “What I dont want to have happen is for some new capabilities to come available that we simply cant get to in a timely fashion, he told Breaking Defense. Were following policies that our adversaries dont. So a lot of the capabilities that were talking about when we talk about AI, machine learning, our adversary is taking full advantage of them, and we are too for the extent that we can get access to. “But the acquisition timelines that we have to deal with in the US are much longer than what our adversaries are doing. If we can streamline our acquisition processes, then were going to be able to put capabilities in the hands of the warfighter quickly,” he added.  Hales said US tech procurement is rooted in 1945 thought and and were just, were way beyond that.”  Specifically, the stagnation is hindering one key process thats under Hales immediate purview: the transition of DoD data to the cloud. When asked how he’s trying to fix this, Hale joked, “I pretty much just banged my head against the wall on a regular basis.”  In reality, he said that he works “very closely with the departments acquisition arm, and were working diligently to try to change those policies where we can, but it is a long road.”  Haless frustrations are nothing new for the Pentagon, which for years has attempted in fits and starts to streamline emerging tech acquisition, especially when it comes to quickly evolving software, including through rapid development initiatives. RELATED: 3 steps towards fixing the acquisition insanity at the Pentagon As far as the cloud goes, the Pentagon is in the midst of a massive migration to the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC), an initiative launched in 2022 to provide cloud services for the Pentagon and each military branch. The contract is worth up to a collective $9 billion. We just crossed the $1 billion mark this last month of consumption of that contract vehicle, and so that provides an easy contract vehicle for the access to the four large, hyper scale cloud providers, Hale said during his panel.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, acquisition, China, cloud computing, cyber security, DISA, Information Technology, Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability JWCC, networks, procurement, technology] [Link to media]

— CCA: The operational concepts driving the Air Force’s future drone program [VIDEO #2]

 

at 9/12/24 3:52pm

WASHINGTON — The Air Forces Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program could prove to be the heart of Americas future airpower — but even as the technology is slowly developing, the service has a lot of questions to figure out how, exactly, it to wants to use these things. To get to the heart of what CCAs are and how they will work, Breaking Defense assembled a panel — featuring reporters Michael Marrow and Valerie Insinna, alongside Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security think tank — to break down what every reader needs to know. Above, you’ll find the second of four videos from that discussion. This one is focused on the kinds of complex questions Air Force planners are trying to sort out right now about concepts of operations, from how these wingmen can fly, to whether they need stealth capabilities, to how to get a pilot to actually trust that a CCA will do what they want it to. Down below you can see our first video, which serves as a primer on just what the CCA program is. In the coming weeks, we’ll publish further videos, one on international efforts to replicate a loyal wingman program from both partners and potential adversaries, and another on the technology that will make CCA fly.

[Category: Air Warfare, Air Force, Anduril, CCA video series, collaborative combat aircraft, Drones, General Atomics, video] [Link to media]

— CCA: The operational concepts driving the Air Force’s future drone program [VIDEO]

 

at 9/12/24 3:52pm

WASHINGTON — The Air Forces Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program could prove to be the heart of Americas future airpower — but even as the technology is slowly developing, the service has a lot of questions to figure out how, exactly, it to wants to use these things. To get to the heart of what CCAs are and how they will work, Breaking Defense assembled a panel — featuring reporters Michael Marrow and Valerie Insinna, alongside Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security think tank — to break down what every reader needs to know. Above, you’ll find the second of four videos from that discussion. This one is focused on the kinds of complex questions Air Force planners are trying to sort out right now about concepts of operations, from how these wingmen can fly, to whether they need stealth capabilities, to how to get a pilot to actually trust that a CCA will do what they want it to. Down below you can see our first video, which serves as a primer on just what the CCA program is. In the coming weeks, we’ll publish further videos, one on international efforts to replicate a loyal wingman program from both partners and potential adversaries, and another on the technology that will make CCA fly.

[Category: Air Warfare, Air Force, Anduril, CCA video series, collaborative combat aircraft, Drones, General Atomics, video] [Link to media]

— Lockheed could see $1B financial ‘impact’ this quarter as F-35 negotiations drag on

 

at 9/12/24 3:45pm

Airmen assigned to the Wisconsin Air National Guards 115th Fighter Wing complete post-flight inspections on U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II aircraft Aug. 13, 2024. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Airman 1st Class Josh Kaeser) WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon are unlikely to reach a deal on the next lot of F-35 stealth fighters by the end of this month, potentially leading to a $1 billion cost impact for the defense giant this quarter, a top Lockheed executive said today. “Given where we are in that negotiation, we dont expect to be completed by the end of this quarter, and that will cause an impact in the quarter — up to about $500 million in sales, and potentially about $500 million of cash flow in the quarter,”  Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave said during the Morgan Stanley Laguna conference. The Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and Lockheed have been engaged in talks over F-35 Lots 18 and 19 for more than a year, and had initially hoped to wrap up contract negotiations by the end of 2023. However, there are still “key terms that are yet to be negotiated” by the parties, which will drag discussions out into the fourth quarter, Malave said. Lockheed is currently seeking a cash injection, as the department’s initial funding for Lot 18 has “pretty much been exhausted,” and the company has already invested some of its own funds to keep F-35 production running smoothly ahead of the contract, he said. “Were working with our Joint Program Office partners as well as with congressional constituents so that we can get some funding in so that we dont really disrupt the production system,” Malave said, adding that the money could come in the form of reprogrammed funds approved by Congress. Overall, Lockheeds latest financial guidance estimates sales between $70.5 billion and $71.5 billion this year, with free cash flow for 2024 between $6 billion and $6.3 billion. As part of the latest round of F-35 contract negotiations, the department is currently reviewing pricing information submitted by Lockheed that breaks down the costs borne by the aerospace prime and its supply chain, said Malave, who acknowledged that the company is still struggling with inflation, high labor costs and extended lead times. The Joint Program Office did not immediately respond to an off-hours request for comment. “They have to go through that, get comfortable with that, make sure the data supports what we provide to them,” he said. Greg Ulmer, the top executive at Lockheed’s aeronautics unit, previously told Breaking Defense that unit costs for the upcoming batch of F-35s could continue to be negatively influenced by inflation as well as a lower annual buy rate from the US military. On top of the costs associated with contract negotiations, Lockheed expects up to $300 million in impact this year due to financial withholdings the Pentagon is making as it accepts F-35s that are being delivered without a full hardware and software upgrade known as Technology Refresh 3, or TR-3. In August, the Pentagon acknowledged it was withholding about $5 million per jet. However, Malave said that number will be reduced as Lockheed achieves specific targets. “We expect to complete some of those milestones this year,” he said, adding the withholdings will determine where Lockheed lands on free cash flow.

[Category: Air Warfare, Congress, Pentagon, Air Force, Business & Industry, F-35, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Jay Malave, Lockheed Martin, TR-3] [Link to media]

— Navy awards L3Harris $587 million contract for next-gen electronic warfare pod

 

at 9/12/24 3:41pm

An E/A-18G Growler (left), assigned to the Gray Wolves of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 142, and an F/A-18E Super Hornet, assigned to the Tomcatters of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 31, prepare to launch from the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System on the first-in-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Fords (CVN 78) flight deck, March 10, 2023. (US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Grace Lyles) WASHINGTON — The US Navy this week said it had awarded a $587 million contract to L3Harris for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of its Next Generation Jammer – Low Band (NGJ-LB)  system, a move that comes four years after the service initially attempted to advance that program in 2020. “NGJ-LB will meet current and emerging electronic warfare threats and increase the lethality of 4th and 5th generation platforms and strike weapons,” Rear Adm. John Lemmon, program executive officer for tactical aircraft programs, said in a Sept. 10 statement. “The Navy will partner with L3Harris to get this key capability into the hands of the warfighter.” The new pod is one element of the larger NGJ system scheduled to be installed on the Navys EA-18G Growler aircraft and is expected to reach early operational capability in 2029. The new contract is for the engineering and manufacturing development phase, which is essentially when DoD asks industry to produce a handful of initial prototypes prior to full-scale production. It is intended to allow industry to be certain its manufacturing processes are satisfactory and gives the Navy a chance to test out a product before entering into serial production. “Our Next Generation Jammer – Low Band solution provides the U.S. Navy with the latest digital, software-based technologies to address advanced and emerging threats from peer adversaries,” Christopher Kubasik, chair and CEO of L3Harris, said in a statement today. L3 said it will deliver eight prototypes to Naval Air Systems Command for assessment and additional testing over the next five years. The service initially awarded a contract for NGJ-LB in 2020 but faced Government Accountability Office protests from Northrop Grumman. That protest was eventually settled in 2022 with the Navy agreeing to amend its request for proposals and re-compete the contract in 2023. NGJ-LB is a joint cooperative program between the DoD and the Australian Department of Defence; the Royal Australian Air Force will eventually receive the capability, according to the US Navy statement. Raytheon is responsible for the mid-band capability associated with the NGJ program, and Flight Global reported the first production pods of that capability were delivered to the Navy in 2023.

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, L3 Harris, NAVAIR, Navy, Next Generation Jammer NGJ, Northrop Grumman, Rear Adm. John Lemmon, Royal Australian Air Force] [Link to media]

— Aussie startup’s small box turns drones into swarm commanders

 

at 9/12/24 2:03pm

A four-legged robot mugs for the camera in a video on the website for Australian robotics firm Breaker. (Screengrab via Breaker) LANDFORCES 2024 — In a room full of large ground vehicles, the small box — roughly the size of a thick deck of cards — showed off by Australian startup Breaker doesnt stand out. But, the company says, this little box is chock full of artificial intelligence algorithms that can be easily integrated onto a variety of unmanned platforms for a wide range of mission sets. We build robots that act like humans. We want them to make it as easy as possible to control multiple autonomous systems across multiple domains, co-founder Matthew Buffa told Breaking Defense at their tiny boothlet at the biennial Land Forces conference, echoing the firms website which features a video of a medium-sized, four-legged robot. The company, which has been partially financed and assisted by the University of New South Wales Founders Defence 10x accelerator program, made its first appearance at Land Forces this year and has attracted a steady stream of the curious and intrigued. Buffa claims the company already has a defense customer, whom he would only describe as a foreign special forces organization that bought a number of our systems. The box, which Buffa called an autonomy stack, incorporates six different AI models that can be put into any autonomous platform. He compared the effects of their box as similar to the Star Wars robot R2D2, who helps Luke Skywalker pilot and target and shoot, instead of just providing him with reams of information he must decide on. That natural two-way communication between an operator and a drone is the key of what the company hopes to get at. As Buffa noted, When youre under high cognitive load and high stress response, humans naturally tend to do voice. Thats a heavy cognitive load if a soldier on a ridge line is trying to control multiple drones. But Breakers system, according to Buffa, is designed to have the operator designate a single drone as the leader, have that drone coordinate with the other sensors, and then have that drone come back for final instructions. For instance, picture a soldier on one side of a ridge line. That soldier gets on the radio and designates one drone the commander of the other 10 drones in a swam. Drones will then aggregate all the sensors across all 10 platforms, and if they find something interesting, say its a supply truck or a vehicle full of operators with weapons, it will inform the operator, weve found a vehicle full of operators with weapons this distance, this bearing from your current location, Buffa explained. Would you like me to follow them? Before deploying the company tries to train the AIs on as many mission types and threats as possible. When they are deployed, he said they brief the drones, just like any operators for a mission. They get given the brief of what theyre supposed to be doing, and where theyre going and any information. We literally give the same information as natural language text, if its a document or a photo or scan of a document, to the drones. They then use that information to make those smart decisions. The drone will decide if, say, an abandoned car near a road appears to be a threat or not. If it decides its not then it wouldnt bother the operator. The operator is doing something important. Im (the drone) not going to go on the radio and tell him about this random car Ive seen, which is what autonomous systems do right now. Buffa adds that offloading the command structure more to an unmanned system should limit the number of human forces needed in the field, which is important given what has been seen on the battlefields of Ukraine, where the RF signals going off drone operators can be traced for a counter-strike by an enemy. The issues we saw was that, for every one autonomous system you wanted to play on the field, theres almost always at least one person who has to carry a lot of equipment, [and] it has to be very loud on the RF spectrum, so these types of systems are just failing in situations such as Ukraine. I mean, if you rely on continuous data and continuous video, and that is the fundamental requirement for your autonomy to exist, the minute it goes out, the systems are not helpful.

[Category: Global, Networks & Digital Warfare, artificial intelligence, Asia, australia, autonomy, Breaker, commercial startups, cyber security, Drones, Land Forces 2024, networks, technology] [Link to media]

— Bell launches campaign to sell Aussies V-280 Valor tiltrotor

 

at 9/12/24 8:20am

Bells V-280 Valor won the US Armys Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft competition (Bell) LANDFORCES 2024 — A top executive with Bell Textron will meet Friday with Australias Army chief, Lt. Gen. Simon Stuart, to push forward what may be a long campaign to convince the Lucky Country it needs the V-280 Valor tiltrotor. Its an ambitious move by Bell, who won the right to produce the V-280 for the Armys Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) effort in December 2022. But Carl Coffman, vice president for military sales at Bell Textron, told Breaking Defense in an interview that the company believes Australias geography and mission sets fit the Valors capabilities perfectly.  This is a huge country. And then you take a look at the force structure of the Australian Defense Force, and look at their posture, and theres two challenges you have. One is your deployment to secure the homeland, the Australian continent, and [two is] the movement of forces strategically to accomplish that, Coffman said during the Land Forces 2024 conference. Most of your force structure is on the outer perimeter of the country, and in the middle of the country is a whole lot of very demanding terrain, and a lot of not very much, right? So Ive got to be able to move my force structure internally very rapidly around this country in order to to defend it. The executive noted that the Australians are already familiar with Bells V-22 tiltrotor and the capability that brings, because of the US Marine force that rotates in and out of Darwin in the north of the country. Australia, faced with fires and floods across vast areas, often calls on its military to assist with those rescue and response missions. And it regularly provides assistance to countries across the Indo-Pacific. The V-280 responding to disasters and threats in the island archipelagos north of Australia would provide flexibility and lift that conventional helicopters cant provide, Coffman argued said. The V-280 is not ready for sale yet, of course. The program just entered the engineering, manufacturing and development phase in the United States, with the company hoping to get soldiers into the cockpit in 2030. Before that date, the company plans to build six prototype aircraft and two user test aircraft. We expect to fly our first prototype test vehicle (PTV) in 2026, he said. The aircraft has been modified to incorporate changes requested by Special Operations Command, including a refueling probe capability in the nose. Coffman said that a potential sale would probably occur through the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. He added that hed already met this week with the chief of Army Aviation, Maj. Gen. Stephen Jobson, whom he said appeared to respond positively. Coffman didnt mention it, but Australias Special Air Services often operates with US forces and might be attracted by an aircraft that can fly vast distances at speeds much faster than a helicopter and is already rigged for use by special operators.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, Air Force, Army, Asia, australia, Bell Textron, Business & Industry, Land Forces 2024, tiltrotors, V-22, V-280 Valor] [Link to media]

— Anduril unveils new cruise-missile like weapon, plus voice-controlled drones

 

at 9/12/24 4:48am

Andurils Barracuda-250. (Anduril photo) WASHINGTON — Arguing that many of today’s options don’t do the trick, Anduril worked to make up something quick: a new family of air-breathing, autonomous air vehicles, akin to cruise missiles or one-way drones, which the company calls “Barracuda.” Unveiled today, the weapon comes in three configurations — the Barracuda-100, -250 and -500 — with each increasing in size and payload. According to the company, the largest configuration can offer a range of greater than 500 nautical miles and over 100 pounds of payload. The two smaller configurations have lower ranges and offer a payload of 35 pounds. The company says each of the three variants can fly at speeds of up to 500 knots.  “The problem that we are seeking to solve here … is America and our allies and partners do not have enough weapons, full stop. And we are not capable of producing the volume of weapons that were going to need to establish deterrence against a peer competitor,” Anduril Chief Strategy Officer Chris Brose said in a briefing with reporters ahead of the announcement.  To do that, Anduril is striving to minimize defense-specific materials needed to produce the Barracuda and maximize the use of commercially available components. Depending on configuration, the weapon is compatible with different launch methods, the company says, such as from aircraft internal weapons bays, external rails, surface vessels, and ground-based systems.   While the Barracuda may be new to the public, Anduril Vice President for Air Dominance & Strike Diem Salmon revealed the weapon has been selected for the early stage of a joint Air Force and Defense Innovation Unit effort to develop a low-cost air vehicle.  Additionally, Salmon noted that the Barracuda can come in a -M configuration — denoting the qualities of a cruise missile or munition — and that modular features mean that the system is capable of “a lot of different things.” Working together in either manned-unmanned or purely unmanned teaming, Brose said Barracudas could offer different capabilities like decoys, target detection and strike. At the core of the Barracuda enabling that autonomous collaboration is software, harnessing Anduril’s Lattice platform that serves as the foundation for much of the company’s weapons development. Called Lattice for Mission Autonomy, the software could enable some ways to defeat adversary countermeasures, says Salmon, as well as smooth the way for upgrades. “What we have sought to do with Barracuda is solve that problem [of limited production] at the level of design, to build a system that is simple, that is easy to manufacture, that is software-defined and mass-producible,” Brose said. Speak Now: Will Voice Commands Control Drone Wingmen? The Lattice software is also core to other high-profile efforts from the company. At a location in west Texas, the site of Anduril’s largest test range, company officials on Tuesday invited reporters to view a demonstration of what they think could be a step forward for programs like Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), the Air Force effort to field drones that can join fighter jets in battle: voice commands to control drones in the heat of a fight.  The demo consisted of four mid-size, jet-powered drones, which the company referred to as clay pigeon jets. The drones took off from the company’s runway, then synched up in formation before being tasked to sweep virtual enemies from the area.  A simulated adversary aircraft then crossed into their airspace. Once the threat was detected, the fleet of drones asked for permission to blow up the enemy.  “Authorization requested for approval,” an AI voice asked, somewhat akin to Apple’s Siri voice assistant. Armed with a laptop and microphone, an operator gave his consent for one of the four drones to eliminate the threat.  “Mustang 11, engage,” the operator replied. Within seconds, the Mustang 11 drone released a simulated missile — shown on a screen during the demo — downing the virtual enemy aircraft. Its job complete, the drone resumed its route alongside its fellow unmanned wingmen.  Anduril officials say it’s testing like this that can help burn down risk for efforts such as the CCA program, where the company and competitor General Atomics are on contract with the Air Force to build prototypes. Using Anduril’s Lattice autonomous software, engineers here inserted voice command capabilities with the aim of reducing cognitive load on pilots and other potential operators.  “We want our pilots to be able to command uncrewed platforms. Theyre going to need to be able to do it inside the cockpit while theyre doing other things, their hands and eyes are already very busy, the environment is shaky. And a voice command interface will allow them to work with these uncrewed platforms pretty easily,” Andrew Burke, an Anduril mission software engineer, explained ahead of the demonstration. (Like other media, Breaking Defense accepted accommodations from Anduril for the trip.)  While this event involved the air domain, Anduril is developing the Lattice mission autonomy applications for other environments like the land and sea. Salmon said the software is “open and hardware agnostic” including for platforms produced by other companies. That could make the software a candidate for programs like a parallel CCA autonomy effort that the Air Force says has five companies on contract, though Salmon declined to comment on whether Anduril is involved.   And, according to Kevin Chlan, senior director for Air Dominance & Strike at Anduril, the company is exploring other tools like large language models — think ChatGPT — for drone operations. For example, Chlan said, an operator could ask a drone for a readout after a long patrol. The capability has been tested in simulations and could soon be introduced in a live environment, he said. While the ability for a single operator to control small fleets of drones showed progress, company officials acknowledged that challenges remain, such as overcoming adversary interference in guidance systems. Still, with a focused development and specific use case, Salmon said her goal for fielding the technology that enabled the demonstration would be only a couple years away.  The voice command demo, which required the operator to give permission to a drone to fire, additionally highlighted debates around the permissible degree of autonomy for a lethal weapon system, a problem that Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall previously told Breaking Defense needs more work.  Chlan acknowledged the issue and said Anduril is striving to abide by relevant DoD policies that guide the use of autonomous weapon systems. Still, he noted that policies can change over time, and it’s always possible to build in a type of dial into the software that governs degrees of autonomy and can essentially be turned up or down.  “So I think that as long as we think about the software that were building that has the ability to kind of scale up and down with the policy, I think were doing right if we do that,” he said. 

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, Naval Warfare, AFA 2024, Air Force, Anduril, Anduril Industries, Army, collaborative combat aircraft, cruise missile, Drones, Frank Kendall, large language models LLMs, Navy, software] [Link to media]

— Army selects 2 ‘attritable’ UASs for company-level recon, surveillance and target acquisition

 

at 9/11/24 6:59pm

Soldiers fly Performance Drone Workss C-100. (photo courtesy of PDW via the US Army). This story was updated on 9/13/24 at 10:15 am with additional details from Army leaders.  WASHINGTON — The US Army announced tonight that it has selected two drones, the Ghost X from Anduril Industries and the C-100 from Performance Drone Works, to proceed with its Company-Level Small Uncrewed Aircraft System program. “The directed requirement for a Company Level Small [unmanned aerial system] UAS capability is a priority…based on observations from the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza,” Gen. James Rainey, the head of the Army Futures Command, said in the announcement. “This requirement describes the importance of considering the UAS as a system, not just an air vehicle, and also highlights the importance of adaptability.” The dual contracts span a 10-year ordering period, with the first tranche valued at $14.5 million for up to 48 drones, Col. Danielle Medaglia, the project manager for uncrewed aircraft systems, subsequently explained. And although the service and companies are still hashing out the terms of their respective agreements, she soldiers could have those initial drones later this fall. This is the first tranche is going to really allow us to learn, Medaglia told reporters during a Thursday call. Were going to develop those tactics, techniques and procedures, and then form programs of instruction, she added. That learning period could drive design changes, drive down the per unit price tag, or lead to the selection of other drones for company formations. Both drones, described as attritable by the service, will be headed for maneuver companies and are designed to carry various payloads for reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition missions. Anduril unveiled the Ghost X in 2023. The system is a dual battery UAS the company says has the ability to carry a 20-pound payload and fly up to 75 minutes with a range of 25 kilometers. Performance Drone Workss C-100 is a man-packable quadcopter designed to ferry up to 15 pounds, for missions up to 74 minutes. Both drones were on the Defense Innovation Unit’s Blue UAS List — an initiative designed to help the services more quickly select commercial systems that are fully-free of Chinese parts. “By selecting approved platforms that have been on DIU’s Blue UAS List, this effort demonstrates the value of DIU’s approach to engaging with the commercial market and providing the DoD ready-to-scale solutions at speed,” said DIU Director, Doug Beck.

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, Air Force, Anduril, Army, Army Futures Command, C-100, DIU, Drones, Gen. James Rainey, Ghost X, Performance Drone Works, US Army] [Link to media]

— Lockheed, Thales team to produce Aussie-made GMLRS munitions

 

at 9/11/24 6:33pm

Soldiers assigned to 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery Regiment, 41st Field Artillery Brigade fire M31 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems from their M270A1 MLRS during the Thunder Cloud live-fire exercise in Andoya, Norway on the night of Sept. 15, 2021. Thunder Cloud was designed to test out the targeting capability of the High Altitude Balloon system coordinated through the 2nd Multi-domain Task Force-Europe using long-range precision fires on a seaborne target 20 Kilometers off the coast on Andoya, above the Arctic Circle. (Official U.S. Army photo by Maj. Joe Bush) LANDFORCES 2024 — Australia is set to boost its capability for domestic manufacturing of precision guided munitions (PGM), by incorporating locally-made rocket motors and warheads into US guided multiple launch rocket system (GMLRS) missiles. Under an agreement announced at the Land Forces Expo in Melbourne on Wednesday, defense company Thales Australia, a subsidiary of the French parent, will manufacture rocket motors and warheads for Lockheed Martin’s GMLRS missiles. Earlier this year, Lockheed and the Australian defence department announced that GMLRS missiles would be assembled in Australia from solely US-sourced components. While derided by some as the equivalent of assembling flatpack furniture, that was a significant step in Australia’s journey towards a domestic PGM production line. Lockheed is standing up assembly of GMLRS at a defense facility at Orchard Hills, NSW, from US-made components, with the first wholly Australian-assembled round to be produced next year. Australian-made warheads and rocket motors from the Thales plants in Benalla, Victoria and Mulwala, NSW, are likely to be the first significant locally produced components for GMLRS. Ken Kota, Lockheed’s vice-president for international integration, said Lockheed was committed to finding Australian partners for missile production. “The global supply of solid rocket motors is under stress. We need partners globally in order to be successful,” he said. “We have very good plans in place. We have done a lot of engineering already. Our team in the US is designing and collaborating with the team here very regularly.” Thales chief executive officer Jeff Connolly said the deal was more than two years in the making. “We started the discussion about, what would it take to make a rocket motor and warhead for GMLRS as a start point,” he said, stressing that this new agreement wasn’t just for Aussie needs but for global requirements. “People would like to tell you that Australia can’t do – well it’s already there,” Connolly said. “It’s enabled by AUKUS and propelled by AUKUS. The amount of cooperation between the states and Australia now because of AUKUS means we can really get going on certifications together, accelerate that through so that these weapons are the same as what would be produced by Lockheed and its partners in the US.” Connolly said Australian components would progressively be introduced to the GMLRS production line. All initial production rounds will feature only US-made components, including rocket motors and warheads, just assembled locally. Only once the Australian-made energetics are fully developed and certified will they be included in the new rounds, something the companies are hoping to see done before the end of the decade. Thales has already produced BLU series bombs which flew on US Marine Corps aircraft earlier this year, which helps with the development of the rocket motors. “That’s the same chemistry involved in those type of aircraft bombs as in rocket motors, a cast compositive material with polymer chemistry,” said Duncan Watt, manager for the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) enterprise for Thales. The strategic benefit of having domestic production capabilities on PGMs is obvious when looking at a map. Should Australia find itself in a conflict, relying on production lines in the US or Europe could prove disastrous. In addition, Australian industry stands to benefit if it can become the Pacific hub for supplying regional partners and allies with weaponry. Australia has previously announced plans for local production of Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile and Joint Strike Missile. Air Marshal Leon Phillips, head of the Australian defence department’s Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise, said Australia wanted to do much more than assemble PGM from foreign supplied components. “If all we did when we are sitting here in five years is bolting components together off extant foreign production lines, I will have failed in our ability to uplift our sovereignty,” he said. “If all I am doing is taking rocket motors out of the US and trying to assemble more rocket motors, I will be hitting the same constraint supply point that already exists.

[Category: Global, Land Warfare, Army, Asia, australia, GMLRS, Land Forces 2024, Lockheed Martin, Precision Guided Munitions, solid rocket motors, Thales] [Link to media]

— DARPA ‘quantum skeptic’ challenges industry: Prove me wrong

 

at 9/11/24 12:06pm

Concept of quantum computing or supercomputer (Jackie Niam/Getty Images) WASHINGTON — As entrepreneurs, researchers, and executives gather this week at the Quantum World Congress outside Washington, how can anyone cut through the hype and figure out which nascent technology has real potential? That’s why DARPA has issued an open challenge to anyone developing a quantum computer to submit themselves to rigorous government testing, led by a self-described “quantum skeptic.” The deadline to submit a brief abstract of one’s project is Sept. 19. That date is not negotiable, warned program manager Joe Altepeter, who’s heading what the agency announced in July as the Quantum Benchmarking Initiative (QBI). Contenders deemed promising will be eligible, for starters, for $1 million to help their testing, but DARPA expects them to be spending that much and more of their own money. “I have a reputation in the DARPA building as a quantum skeptic,” Altepeter said in an interview with Breaking Defense. “I was definitely the reviewer you absolutely did not want to get on your quantum submission, because I measured my success based on how much money I could save the US taxpayer by not funding dumb quantum ideas — and trust me, there are plenty of dumb quantum ideas to go around.” But over the last few years, Altepeter told Breaking Defense, he’s come around to the idea that there might be fire somewhere in all this quantum smoke, after all. So he’s prepared to be convinced, and to convince others. “Were going to do our best to disprove anybody who steps through our door — were going to be skeptical, by design, but were also going to be a fair arbiter,” Altepeter said in an interview. “So if you really think you can go the distance and you convince my team, we will be your advocate inside the government, in rooms you cant go, and say, ‘look, agencies A, B and C, we tried to break it and we failed.’” That kind of DARPA seal of approval could be a tremendous asset for quantum computing companies — as well as the feedback from the testing process itself. “We offer something to companies that is unique,” Altepeter said. “We are going to build the best verification and validation team in the world for quantum computing, [giving] unbiased feedback on what is right and what is wrong about your approach.” In the increasingly competitive quantum space, “almost every other player is looking to get rich somehow and has a dog in this fight,” Altepeter said. But on government salaries, “we are definitely not going to get rich,” he noted dryly. “We’re looking for the answer.” Once a company or research lab submits its abstract, it needs to make an oral presentation to DARPA, one that sounds a lot like a PhD thesis defense. “We want you to come in and have a conversation with us for half a day so we can ask really hard questions and see how you respond,” Altepeter said. A proposal that passes this gauntlet may receive an Other Transaction Authority (OTA) award of up to $1 million for a six-month review of their concept for the quantum computer they plan to build. But that’s just “Stage A.” If the proposal survives those six months, it becomes eligible for Stage B, up to $15 million in DARPA funding for a year-long assessment of its R&D plan. Make it through that year, and the proposal will qualify for Stage C: up to $300 million and “an army of engineers” will work “as long as it takes” to validate the design, Altepeter said. DARPA will provide the core of this expertise but is soliciting participants from academia, Energy Department national labs and Federally Funded R&D Centers as well, he said. “We are building an initiative that could be more than a billion dollars over five years,” Altepeter said. “[But] everything depends on what we find.” If none of the proposals pass muster, he said, “we won’t spend anything.” Companies that do win DARPA funding should consider an adjunct to their own investments in testing, validation and due diligence, Altepeter emphasized, not a replacement for them. “Were only going to play with someone in Stage C if [they’re] spending more than DARPA on this,” he said. “Anybody whos serious about doing this is already planning on committing huge resources … If theyre not already planning on spending big money, they probably are not serious about this.” That said, as a fan of the classic Back to the Future movies and their iconic mad scientist inventing time machines in his garage, Altepeter promised, “We will carefully evaluate absolutely every submission, from Doc Brown and from a megacorporation.” But, he said, “I would be very surprised if Doc Brown makes it very far.”

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, cyber security, darpa, networks, Quantum Benchmarking Initiative - QBI, quantum computing, technology] [Link to media]

— Why would Russia need Iranian ballistic missiles? Experts point to tactics, industrial challenges

 

at 9/11/24 10:45am

Military vehicles carrying Iranian-made surface-to-surface missiles take part in a military parade marking Irans Army Day anniversary near the Imam Khomeini shrine in the south of Tehran, April 18, 2023. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images) BEIRUT — On Tuesday the US leveled a new charge against Russia and Iran, alleging the Kremlin has received specific Iranian ballistic missiles for the first time and could employ them within weeks in the war in Ukraine — what Americas top diplomat called a dramatic escalation. The purported move, denied by Iran, was condemned by Washington and its allies in Europe, but also served as a glimpse into Moscows tactical thinking and, potentially, some deeper capacity challenges the Kremlins war machine is facing, according to officials and experts. Tactically, US officials suggested the 75-mile-range Fath-360 missiles would be used in close-in fights, allowing Russia to preserv[e] its longer-range capabilities for use throughout the battlefield, thus deepening Russias arsenal and also, again, giving it the ability to strike the kinds of targets that weve seen them striking, to include civilian targets, as Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder put it. Jean Loup Samaan, a senior research fellow at the Middle East Institute, agreed. “Over the past two decades, Iran has developed one of the most advanced ballistic arsenals and the bulk of them are either short or mid-range, Samaan told Breaking Defense. I assume for Russia they are relevant for the kind of battles we see in the border area between Russian and Ukrainian troops, so at tactical level [theyll be used] to exhaust the Ukrainians. But Samaan said Moscows outreach to Iran could be the latest clue about internal production woes. It may also indicate, just like with North Korean involvement behind Russia, that the Russian defense industry is struggling to keep the pace with the production of weapons used by the Russian forces, he said. RELATED: Russian conquest of Ukraine on the table if US, allied military aid falters, study says The Kremlin may have cause to worry about the effectiveness of Iranian missiles after Israel and its allies were able to take down virtually all the threats launched towards Israel in a dramatic mid-April barrage, but Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank said thats not as relevant an example as it may seem. “The Fath-360 is a derivative of Iran’s most precise ballistic missile, the Fateh family of single-stage, solid-propellant short-range ballistic missiles, Ben Taleblu told Breaking Defense. Much of what Iran fired on April 13 were liquid-propellant medium-range ballistic missiles never before employed in regional military operations. There is a considerable difference between the track records of these two systems. And lest we forget, for Putin, the perfect is not the enemy of the good at the moment. Can Kasapoğlu, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, wrote in an analysis today that the Fath-360 is a textbook tactical ballistic missile whose rapid launch cycle and low per-unit cost make it a formidable option, particularly when fired in salvos. Sanctions And Skepticism In response to the purported Iranian missile transfer to Russia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom announced that they “will be taking immediate steps to cancel bilateral air services agreements with Iran,” in addition to sanctioning Iran air and entities and individuals involved with Iran’s missile program. The US followed suit. While the sanctions and canceling economic ties are important, the experts said they did not consider them enough to deter Tehran. “The sanctions have sometimes slowed down the nuclear and ballistic programs but over the past decades, the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] has always found ways to circumvent those sanctions. They have a strong indigenous defense industry that is able to develop those ballistic missiles and they also relied on Asian partners such as North Korea so that also weakened the impact of sanctions,” Samaan told Breaking Defense. Ben Taleblu said that if anything, these penalties are what should have been levied following Irans drone transfers [to Russia] two years ago to thwart the transfer of missiles more recently. But now they can serve as the building block of a more coherent European policy toward Tehran if paired with the snap back of UN sanctions,” he added. Regardless of the sanctions, it appears Russias ties to Iran are only growing stronger. Iran and Russia have both issued many statements that they are very close to signing a defense “comprehensive agreement” to boost their military cooperation, as well as formalize it. “⁠Iran’s widening radius of arms proliferation is a symptom of a much larger problem, Ben Taleblu said. Slowly and steadily, Iran and Russia are working to revise the regional balances of power in their favor, deepening their military cooperation and engaging in salami tactics against their adversaries while compartmentalizing their conflicts. Getting good on countering one of these threats will require improving your policy on the other.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, Air Force, Army, comprehensive agreement, Europe, Fath-360, iran, Middle East, Russia, short range ballistic missile, tactical level, Ukrane conflict] [Link to media]

— Navy awards BlueForge Alliance new $950M contract to boost sub industrial base

 

at 9/11/24 10:01am

The Virginia-class attack submarine Pre-Commissioning Unit Minnesota (SSN 783) pulls pierside at Naval Station Norfolk from a scheduled underway. (US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alex R. Forster/Released) WASHINGTON — The Navy on Tuesday awarded BlueForge Alliance a $950 million contract to continue its efforts in bolstering the submarine industrial base (SIB) in the United States in preparation for the work necessary to carry out the AUKUS security pact. “This contract will execute ongoing critical efforts to strengthen and expand the SIB and provides a direct contractual arrangement with a strong partner with demonstrated experience driving enhanced capability and capacity,” a Navy spokesperson told Breaking Defense. “The contract supports urgent ongoing efforts to diversify and strengthen the supply chains, drive national/regional workforce attraction, targeted training capacity increases and enterprise wide retention improvements,” the spokesperson continued. “Additionally, this work will scale manufacturing technology (additive manufacturing, robotics / automation) capacity and capability that is essential for defense industrial base wide production and maintenance.” Roughly $500 million of the contract award is categorized under foreign military sales. The spokesperson said those funds are under FMS because they directly support Australias anticipated purchase of three or five Virginia-class submarines by adding capacity to the American industrial base. The U.S money being executed under this contract is part of the FY 2024 National Security Supplemental focused on accelerating and scaling critical efforts required for domestic submarine construction and sustainment. Efforts related to development of the larger submarine industrial base development, including Australia and/or the UK, may be considered at a future date, the spokesperson said. BlueForge Alliance is a Texas-based nonprofit company that has rapidly made a name for itself in the defense industrial space by working with the Navy and submarine prime contractor General Dynamics to hit the service’s aspirational goal of hiring 100,000 new shipbuilders over the next 10 years. A spokesperson for BlueForge did not immediately return a request for comment about the contract. Prior to Tuesdays contract announcement, Navy officials had said they previously awarded the company roughly $500 million to turbo boost the service’s campaign to hire workers from across the country — most notably its advertising has been shown at Major League Baseball games and NASCAR races. The new contract brings the total amount of money the Navy has awarded to BlueForge in contracts up to $1.3 billion. Matt Sermon, a Navy civilian leading the service’s submarine industrial base efforts, previously told reporters BlueForge’s work has expanded to leading an additive manufacturing consortium across several universities as well as working with certain original equipment manufacturers and additive manufacturing companies to “tie up that whole entire group from industry and academia into an organization that’s focused on the material maturity that we need to drive” capacity. Updated 9/11/2024 at 2:40 pm ET with additional information from the US Navy.

[Category: Naval Warfare, BlueForge Alliance, Matt Sermon, Naval Sea Systems Command, Navy, Submarine Industrial Base] [Link to media]

As of 9/16/24 1:47pm. Last new 9/16/24 1:47pm.