Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Canada, Australia jointly pledge $474M to research hypersonic missile defense tech

 

at 11/22/24 2:01pm

Bill Blair, Minister of Defense of Canada, speaks to the press after his arrival at NATO headquarters on the first day of the NATO Defense Ministers Meeting on June 13, 2024 in Brussels, Belgium. (Omar Havana/Getty Images) HALIFAX, CANADA — Australia and Canada have inked a new agreement to jointly work on technology to counter the ever-growing threat of missiles, especially hypersonic weapons, Canada’s Minister of National Defence Bill Blair announced today. “Im very pleased to announce that Canada and Australia have today signed an agreement to work together on researching emerging missile threats,” Blair told an audience during the kickoff of the Halifax International Security Forum. “Were going to focus on countering hypersonic weapon systems and under this new agreement… [we will be] very closely tied in all of our efforts collectively together.” In total, the duo plan to spend up to $474 million over the next five years developing a “range of solutions,” he added. While Blair didn’t drill down into the specific capabilities on the development table, a subsequent press release noted that the Defence Research and Development Canada and the Australian Defence Science and Technology Group will work together researching the emerging missile threats, to develop detection, monitoring, targeting and counter-measure technologies. Defense and political leaders from around the globe are gathered in Nova Scotia this weekend for the annual Halifax International Security Forum, Canadas premiere defense event. Among the main themes: Discussing the wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East, along with potential changes to NATO as president-elect Donald Trump prepares for his return to the White House. During Trump’s first turn in office, he publicly bashed NATO countries not meeting the 2 percent GDP defense spending goal — a mark Canada does not currently hit. RELATED: America needs to keep pushing Canada on defense spending Blair used his opening speech today to praise Canada’s close relationship with its neighbor to the south and vowed to eventually meet that threshold. “We have always depended upon that relationship [with the US] with an unparalleled alliance, especially illustrated through NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command], which is our binational military command that keeps a vigilant eye on North American airspace,” Blair said. “NORAD defends our countries against threats in the air domain, thats why we are working in partnership with the United States to invest quite significantly in order modernization, were making a generational investment,” he later added. Taking the stage just after Blair, two US Senators — James Risch, R-Idaho and Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire — called on Canada to get to that 2 percent spending target as quickly as possible.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, Air Force, Army, Asia, australia, Bill Blair, canada, Europe, Halifax International Security Forum 2024] [Link to media]

— ‘Plug and Play’: Army’s Project Linchpin prepares to unveil open-source architecture for AI

 

at 11/22/24 1:39pm

Army Reserve Soldiers with the 75th U.S. Army Reserve Innovation Command’s Army Applications Group and Support Group Artificial Intelligence and Data Team participate in Code-A-Thon 24, Aug. 1, 2024, at Fort Liberty, North Carolina. (Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Matthew Chlosta / 75th US Army Reserve Innovation Command) WASHINGTON — The Army’s artificial intelligence accelerator, Project Linchpin, is working with open source software firm Red Hat to unveil an initial version of its AI development architecture as early as next week, product lead Bharat Patel said. The architecture, in essence, is a set of common technical standards — Application Programming Interfaces (API), data labeling protocols, and so on — to ensure that AIs built for the Army by different vendors are all compatible. “We are defining some of these APIs and some of these architectures with Red Hat now, [with] an open source project being dropped end of November,” Patel told the Red Hat Government Symposium here on Tuesday. “This is going to be one of our first attempts at a public-private partnership.” By creating a level playing field for competition among innovative companies of different sizes, this “open architecture” should allow the Army to use whichever algorithms it likes best into its suite of AI software, fully confident the different products will work together, Patel and other officials explained in public comments and interviews with Breaking Defense. “This space moves so fast that we cant build a strategy that relies on one company or two,” Patel told the conference. “We actually need to work on the standards that allow us to create more of a competitive architecture that people just kind of plug and play. We want to really get after some of the non-traditional small businesses.” The problem with tapping into this rapidly expanding and evolving ecosystem of innovators is that, frankly, it’s kind of chaotic. “It’s like the Wild, Wild West when it comes to AI right now,” Patel told Breaking Defense. “Project Linchpin’s main focus is to be able to standardize a lot of how we deliver AI.” That chaos isn’t just in the private sector: There are plenty of ad hoc, incompatible AI efforts within the military itself. “One of the trends we’ve seen across the Army is data is in pretty tough shape,” said Col. Chris Anderson, the Army’s product manager for Intelligence Systems & Analytics, who works closely with Patel. “It’s spread out all over the place, [and] it’s not labeled.” Such disorganized data (the polite term is unstructured) is difficult to do even basic analysis on, let alone train an AI algorithm. RELATED: ‘Fight tonight’ vs ‘Getting it right’: CDAO’s Martell wants to build AI to last Even when data is labeled, Anderson told Breaking Defense, the labeling may be inconsistent, idiosyncratic, or otherwise unintelligence to any human or machine beside the original users. For example, early on in Project Linchpin, “one of the pilots that we did was in response to a real-world need in CENTCOM,” he recounted. “A unit approached us and said, We really need to find this specific target. And they had a tranche of data that they had labeled, [but] that the labeled data was not very good.” Project Linchpin and a contractor spent a lot of time and effort relabeling the unit’s data so they could train an AI model to analyze it. But when they provided the trained-up model to the unit, it didn’t work properly on their computers, Anderson said, because model had been trained on machines using one type of chip (GPUs, common in the AI world) but the units devices used a different kind (CPUs). To bring order to this chaos of incompatible systems, “we want to partner with industry to help define these standards,”  Patel emphasized. “We don’t want to be the government and be like, ‘Here’re our standards, you must comply.’” So step one was figuring out a common ground that different companies and the Army procurement system could all live with. “We’ve been working really closely with ASA(ALT) [the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology] on what are the standards we are going to implement within the pipeline and how does that feed into Army-level policy,” Anderson said. “The [Linchpin] team, they’ve done 500 one-on-one sessions with industry partners — multiple hours [apiece] — and  evaluated, I think, 300 responses from industry, and the majority of those were either small businesses or non-traditionals.” “Really early on we learned, there’s no turnkey solution, there’s no one size fits all,” Anderson said. “It’s changing every day. We’ve got to be able to bring in third-party applications and services quickly, we’ve got to be able to offboard them quickly when something better comes along.” At Linchpin, “they don’t want a closed ecosystem, they don’t want black box closed-source contributors,” said Michael Zizza, who handle the Army account at Red Hat. “They need interoperability.” Red Hat was well suited to help develop such an architecture, Zizza told Breaking Defense, because as a vendor of open-source software, “the code is free,” and what you’re paying Red Hat for is tech support. It’s an experienced intermediary between the chaotic creativity of the software development world and the order required by large corporations and government agencies. Project Linchpin originally contracted with both Red Hat and consulting firm Booz Allen to “flesh out” the guiding principles behind the architecture, Patel told Breaking Defense. (In software development jargon, the final version of those principles is Traceability, Observability, Orchestration, Replaceability and automated Consumption, TOORC). From there, Patel said, Linchpin worked through the Army Research laboratory to set up  a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Red Hat, which the firm announced last month. “We’re kind of in the early stages now,” Zizza said, “but we’re looking at specific things like architecture diagrams [and] an open API specification.” Carley Welch contributed to this story.

[Category: All Domain, Land Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Army, artificial intelligence, big data, cyber security, Multi-Domain Operations, networks, open architecture, PEO-IEWS, Project Linchpin, Red Hat, Red Hat Government Symposium, technology] [Link to media]

— Sweden to fund Ukrainian domestic production of long-range missiles, drones

 

at 11/22/24 12:13pm

Rustem Umerov, (C-L) Minister of Defense of Ukraine, greets Pål Jonson (C-R), Minister of Defense of Sweden before the start of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting on the first day of the NATO Defense Ministers Meeting at the NATO Headquarters on June 13, 2024 in Brussels, Belgium. (Omar Havana/Getty Images) STOCKHOLM — The Swedish government today announced it will provide “substantial funding” for the mass production of long-range missiles and drones inside Ukraine, a major step as Stockholm seeks to bolster Kyiv’s defensive efforts. Dollars and timelines were not revealed during the announcement, made today by Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson as he hosted his Ukrainian counterpart, Rustem Umerov. But the move shows that Stockholm is dedicated to supporting Ukraine for the long-haul. “This will be produced in Ukraine by the Ukrainian defense industry. It will be financed by Sweden. President [Vladimir] Zelenskyy has stated that there is an especially high demand for funding long-range weapons and long-range drones,” Jonson said at a press briefing Friday at Karlsberg Palace in Solna. “Ukraine is Swedens number one security priority,” Jonson stated. He later underlined that Ukraine has “the full right” in accordance with international law to defend itself “inside and outside” of its territory. As of Oct. 4, Sweden has donated military assistance worth approximately 48.4 billion Swedish krona ($4.37 billion), per a government fact sheet. Stockholm has previously pledged a commitment of 25 billion Swedish krona ($2.28 billion USD) for 2025 and the same amount for 2026, numbers the government here has said could go up if needed. “Were glad that we can further develop both your capability to produce long-range missiles and also long-range strike approach,” Jonson said, addressing Umerov. RELATED: Northern NATO defense chiefs see ever-closing window to prepare for Russia According to Jonson, the two ministers on Thursday met representatives from the Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI) and Swedens procurement agency (FMV). And “later today [Friday] were going to be having discussions with several representatives of the Swedish Defense Industry.” A government spokesperson declined to give details on what kind of long-range missiles will be considered for this effort. Decisions will be made in consultation with Ukraine, as they have several different projects they are working on. The spokesperson also declined to further comment on which companies the ministers were meeting with. Saab, Sweden’s defense champion, gave no further clue. “At this point it is too soon to speculate and we refer further questions about how Sweden might support Ukraine’s long range missile capability to the Swedish Government. Generally speaking, we are always ready for discussions with Sweden and our other customers on how we can support their needs with our knowledge and expertise,” Saab spokesperson Mattias Rådström wrote in an email to Breaking Defense. Sweden has previously donated an Erieye platform, Saab’s Airborne Early Warning and Control System to Ukraine. Ukrainian pilots also have been trained on Saab’s Gripen fighters, and while the government says it is ready to begin giving Ukraine those jets, Jonson indicated that they have not done so at the behest of other allies. “The donation of the Gripens is not in the hands of ourselves,” Jonson said, with other actors in the Air Force Coalition, predominantly Denmark, Netherlands and the United States, wanting to make sure Ukraine is settled with the F-16 before introducing other complex technologies into the ecosystem. “They have advised us to wait to donate the Gripen until it goes further with the F-16 as well,” Jonson said. “So now our focus has been on delivering the Erieye platform, which is the command and control platform that [works with] the F-16.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, Air Force, Army, Drones, Europe, Missiles, Pål Jonson, Sweden, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— For air superiority, USAF must pursue effective, rather than ‘affordable,’ mass

 

at 11/22/24 10:55am

An F-22 Raptor takes off for a training mission at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. The aircraft was flown by Col. Terry Scott during his fini-flight, which is the ceremonial final flight of an Air Force pilot. Scott is retiring from the Air Force after 33 years of combined enlisted and commissioned service. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Alexander Martinez/Released) Constrained for funds and facing rapidly improving potential adversaries, the US Air Force (USAF) is grappling with how to ensure control of the air in the 2030s. One proposal — leaning heavily on standoff forces to provide “affordable” mass without traditional air superiority — has a problem: even with long-range kill chains, exquisite smart weapons, and low-cost swarms, no one has specifically described how such novel ideas would lead to victory. As the USAF considers difficult standoff versus stand-in decisions and what future control of the air might entail, the debate must return to a critical focus: how to produce effective mass. Arguments over whether air superiority is necessary overlook a critical point: In a hypothetical defense against an invading adversary, the USAF might win with standoff-centric theories of victory, if they solve the effective mass calculus. However, with air superiority, the odds of victory increase drastically. The terms “stand-in” and “standoff” forces are popular among USAF planners but do not exist in USAF or Department of Defense doctrine. Generally speaking — although there is some important nuance for stealth capabilities — stand-in forces achieve effective mass and strike within contested areas via organic firing methods; for example, F-15E Strike Eagles employing weapons on self-generated coordinates. Standoff forces employ long-range weapons from aircraft outside notional enemy engagement zones; for instance, a bomber launching a Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile reliant on more complicated kill chains. “Effective mass” embraces Col. John Boyd’s dictum to operate “at a faster tempo or rhythm” than its adversaries. Traditionally, effective mass in the USAF translates to air superiority, which theorists generally define as the air control necessary for freedom of maneuver in support of striking varying target sets. In the modern era, fighting for air superiority is fundamental to historical examples of victory: success is most likely when leaders prepare their forces for complex challenges in the name of soundly defeating an adversary. The connection between stand-in forces and effective mass is meaningful because, traditionally, the former enables the latter. Stand-in forces with air superiority provide control of the air, support to ground elements, and short kill chains against mobile and deceptive adversaries. If the USAF is to succeed in a major conflict, it must not mistake affordable mass for effective mass. Of course, affordable mass is good to have. But, a standoff-centric approach has five significant issues. Five Issues with Standoff-centric Theories of Victory First, a standoff-centric approach might play into adversary capabilities and potential plans, as an opponent must only dodge or defeat a finite number of cruise missiles and drones. A “hellscape” might be an adversary-specific hedge, but how long could such efforts delay a dedicated air, ground, and sea invasion supported by a rolling barrage? It is easy to imagine that standoff weapons provide mass, but the bar for delivering effective mass against mobile targets within protected airspace is quite high. Without a viable stand-in partner, standoff tactics comply with adversary strategies to push US forces farther from the battlefield, forcing the Air Force to reconsider its approach to air superiority and the fundamentals of basing. We do not discount the difficulties of penetrating modern anti-access, area-denial systems or claim that standoff, drone, or denial-based efforts might not be effective in specific contexts. However, given the inherent difficulties of interwar decisions, have planners explored how many options an aggressing adversary would have against pulsed operations employing standoff-centric tactics? Second, if the USAF depends on standoff-centric tactics and abandons air superiority, it is taking an ambitious leap away from historical lessons learned. Drones and other novel capabilities add to the complexity of modern warfare, but they are not a replacement for the capabilities enjoyed by a stand-in force ensuring even limited control of the air over a battlefield. Artificial intelligence (AI) driven unmanned platforms are an intriguing option, but they have no history of battlefield success and are likely unavailable near-term. The USAF has attempted to start the transition to more unmanned platforms before, but seeking to define affordable mass in terms of lower risk is an inherent admission that stand-in benefits are still necessary. If the technology is not immediately available, the USAF cannot afford to gamble its entire future on it. Third, creating an effective deterrent, always a tenuous concept at best, is much more difficult when you’re relying primarily on stand-off systems. The uneven effects of standoff munitions in Israel and Ukraine underscore the reality that such tactics are enabling and not decisive. Additionally, the United States rarely, if ever, fights the war it expects under predictable circumstances. It is certainly possible that, for example, a war with China might break out under the assumptions inherent in making it the “pacing threat,” but it is equally likely that a situation requiring immediate stand-in forces — whether it be a deeply buried strategic target or something akin to the defense of Israel — will arise. Fourth, a standoff-centered force reduces the political means available to leaders attempting to manage escalation. Designing a force capable of winning with the least risk is laudable, but significant wars rarely finish within the realm of their original ends, if those means were ever straightforward in the first place. The longer a conflict endures, the more likely the Air Force will run short of standoff weapons or face demands for results only stand-in forces can provide. Compromising on funding the latter in the short-term might have devastating consequences and reduce national leader decision space should they demand higher risks in exchange for better results, i.e., striking at the heart of the enemy. Finally, a force designed primarily to prevent losses will be brittle and unthreatening to anti-access and area-denial defenses, as stand-in effects are a critical part of attrition when fighting adversaries capable of producing overwhelming mass on their home turf. The key to countering such advantages is not outproducing adversaries — the US industrial base will not allow it in an interwar period — but lies in procuring survivable and lethal stand-in assets capable of effectively fighting attritional conflicts from vigorously defended positions. Such investments would make a traditional theory of victory viable: effective mass with increasing levels of control of the air via a combination of risk-acceptable stand-in and standoff forces prevents an adversary’s fait accompli and attrits enemy advantages in mass over time. This is how the USAF could realistically attack adversary advantages and prove via Lanchester-type calculations a viable theory of victory. The obvious counter to an appeal for stand-in capabilities and air superiority is that pursuing traditional theories of victory is impossible, given modern peer capabilities. We are not arguing that success will be easy, even with advanced stealth capabilities and the most exquisite space and cyber programs. However, cultural shifts and a nuanced acquisition plan would allow the Air Force to embrace tactical creativity and determine what would be necessary to transition from pulsed operations to persistent efforts in a long campaign or press towards preventing a fait accompli at all reasonable costs, should political circumstances demand so. A balanced force that prioritizes effective mass over affordable mass and always pursues some version of control of the air via stand-in capabilities is key. Lt. Col. Shane “Axl” Praiswater, USAF, PhD, is a graduate of the Johns Hopkins University Strategic Thinkers Program and is a B-21 Initial Cadre pilot, at Edwards AFB, California. Major Matthew “Maddog” Guertin, USAF, is an F-22 Instructor Pilot and Air Force Fellow in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Air Force, Defense Department, or the US government.

[Category: Air Warfare, Opinion, Air Force, air superiority, Defense Department, Drones, Op-Ed Commentary] [Link to media]

— Boeing inks contracts worth more than $4B for KC-46s, P-8s

 

at 11/22/24 10:09am

A Boeing KC-46A Pegasus takes off at Yokota Air Base, Japan, Oct. 25, 2018, during a system evaluation. (U.S. Air Force photo by Yasuo Osakabe) WASHINGTON — The Pentagon this week awarded Boeing a pair of separate contracts for 15 KC-46A Pegasus tankers and seven P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, deals that are collectively worth more than $4 billion. Although both contracts had been expected under existing plans, getting the deals signed is good news for Boeing, whose defense arm logged $2 billion in losses for its last fiscal quarter and which is facing company-wide layoffs. The P-8A deal is valued at $1.67 billion and includes non-recurring engineering work for foreign military sales made to Canada and Germany. It will bring the number of P-8As on contract up to 207, 135 of which are for the US Navy. Australia, India, the United Kingdom, Norway, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Germany and Canada all fly the maritime surveillance aircraft, which has played an integral part in experimentation done at the behest of the AUKUS trilateral security pact. “This $1.67 billion undefinitized contract for seven additional P-8A Poseidons not only reinforces the U.S. Navy’s commitment to maintaining a robust maritime presence but also highlights Boeings dedication to delivering safe, reliable platforms that enhance the Navy’s operational capabilities, readiness and effectiveness,” Tory Peterson, vice president and P-8 program manager at Boeing. “We look forward to delivering these additional P-8A maritime patrol aircraft to ensure the continued safety and security of our nation and allies.” The KC-46A deal is valued at $2.38 billion and includes 15 additional planes for the US Air Force. The new deal brings the number of planes on contract up to 168, according to a Boeing statement. The company to date has delivered 89 KC-46As to the US Air Force as well as four to Japan. RELATED: Boeing Machinists Vote To End Strike, Putting KC-46, P-8 Programs Back On Track The State Department previously cleared Japan to purchase up to nine KC-46 tankers for its air force in a deal valued at a $4.1 billion. If the Japanese proceed with that deal, it would more than double its current fleet, which is currently set to eventually reach six planes. Israel is also under contract on the tanker, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns over the last decade.

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, Boeing, Business & Industry, canada, Germany, Japan, KC-46A Pegasus, Navy, P-8A Poseidon] [Link to media]

— After watching Ukraine, Central Asian nations ‘turning away’ from Russia for arms: US officials

 

at 11/22/24 9:20am

The Kazakhstan National Defense University welcomed then-Lt. Gen. Michael Garrett, the commander of US Army Central, as its guest speaker Dec. 13, 2016, in the capital city of Astana. (US Army photo by Sgt. Brandon Hubbard) WASHINGTON — The war in Ukraine has prompted introspection among Central Asian nations about buying military equipment mostly from Russia, and pushed them to look farther from home for arms — from Beijing all the way to Washington, according to State Department officials. I would argue thats not countries turning towards China; its countries turning away from Russia, Ambassador Donald Lu, assistant secretary at the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, said on a panel at the Center for New American Security last week. And theyre not just looking at China, theyre looking at Iran, theyre looking at Europe, theyre looking at the United States. Theyre having to go further afield because military equipment is just not available in the way that it was before the Ukraine war. Another State Department official told Breaking Defense this week that before the Kremlins February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the Central Asian nations — Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — already had been diversifying away from Russia. But the process has been hurried along not only by the strain the war has put on the pipeline for Russian equipment and parts, but by the view of Russias experience on the battlefield. The second factor that has caused sort of a reexamination is all the five Central Asian nations have observed the performance of Russian equipment in Ukraine and have raised questions about how that equipment would perform in a regional conflict, should they have that requirement, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The official declined to comment on the broader political implications of Russias invasion of Ukraine in the region, but an analysis by the Foreign Policy Research Institute in May said Central Asian nations, as fellow former members of the Soviet Union, were spooked by Russias move. For Russia, the invasion deeply damaged its reputation and self-appointed role as the sole security manager for the region, reads the analysis, written by Robert Hamilton, head of research at the FPRIs Eurasia Program. Given what the Central Asian governments, especially Kazakhstan, have seen in Ukraine regional states, they view Moscow’s motives with deep suspicion and have lost considerable faith in its military capabilities. Small Budgets, Key Strategic Location Central Asia is not a large defense market. The combined military expenditure for Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan in 2023 was approximately $1.84 billion, according to a Stockholm International Peace Research Institute database, by far the lowest expenditure by region that SIPRI tracked. (Figures for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were not available.) For comparison, the next closet regional expenditure, from Central America and the Caribbean, was approximately $14.7 billion. But the nations sit at a key geostrategic crossroads, with Russia immediately to the north, China to the east and Iran and Afghanistan to the south. Since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the region has become an even more important player in the realm of counterterrorism, according to the State Department official. So it is one part of the world where you do get a lot of these strategic competitors kind of working in a similar place, the official said. The FPRI analysis notes that China has been a prime beneficiary of Central Asias slow pull away from Russia, and Beijing has offered attractive economic packages as well as arms deals to draw them closer. But it also notes that Turkey has a presence in defense sales as well, especially when it comes to drone sales, according to SIPRI data. As Breaking Defense has reported, Ankara has been aggressively expanding its military export portfolio in recent years. Turkey frankly, [has] a share that is sizeable and growing, the official added. The State Department official didnt expound on Lus reference to Iran, and the SIPRI database makes scant mention of public Iranian exports to the region. But Breaking Defense has reported that global interest in Tehrans indigenous, relatively cheap unmanned aerial vehicles, used in mass in Ukraine by Russia, has only grown since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict. In 2022, Iran publicly inaugurated a drone manufacturing facility in Tajikistan. Central Asias American Shopping List As for the US, the State Department official said Washington has seen a very high level of interest in American-made defense products, platforms and services, but theres a couple of limiting factors there. As you can imagine, expense is one of those, the official said. Our defense articles and services are fairly advanced, right? And, therefore, tend to be expensive. Relatedly, there are tech release issues, as the US is cautious when it comes to handing over high-tech equipment, presumably especially to nations that have such historically close ties to Russia and China. Coming information-sharing agreements, the official said, could help with that particular obstacle. So we do see that we need to balance sometimes US protection of our tech against where were going to be able to release those things. The Central Asians, though, are again very interested in our particular products; its really just a matter of making a good match, the official said. As such, the official said its unlikely that big ticket items, like fighter jets, will be part of any deals any time soon. (One of the only announcements about major US Foreign Military Sales to the region on the website for the Defense Cooperation Security Agency, for instance, was a 2020 notice that the US had approved a potential $128 million deal with Kazakhstan for airborne ISR systems.) The official said what the US has seen, instead, are very precise requests, the sort of smaller capabilities that tend to fill niches they have. So it will be things like, I need a UAV with a 20-kilometer range, with some amount of loiter time that can do X, Y and Z, the official said. Or I need an over-the-horizon radar, which will pick up the following kind of targets. I say that as an example that theyre fairly sophisticated, or at least clear-eyed, about what theyre looking for from us, the official said. Another great place to start, the official said, is small arms and ammunition — a lower-profile but ubiquitous military need that Central Asian nations have expressed interest in having the US fill. And we find that pretty significant because these countries have been firing Russian caliber ammunition forever and ever, the official said. But they look at the US small arms inventory and think, I want to get to that; I want to get over to that capability.' Another State Department official told Breaking Defense that Central Asian nations have also expressed interest in boutique equipment used by American special operations forces — sometimes after witnessing the equipment in action during joint training exercises. But yea we certainly see working ourselves up the ladder to bigger systems, to more capable systems, the first official said. This is one of the way that we connect with countries around the world, that official said. Its perhaps magnified in Central Asia because of the competition thats happening in the region.

[Category: Global, Land Warfare, Army, Asia, Central Asia, China, Europe, iran, Middle East, Russia, turkey, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— Integrating commercial off-the-shelf computing on military platforms and how to make it work

 

at 11/22/24 9:08am

The NCS Technologies division responsible for additive manufacturing is subject to the same quality controls as third parties. NCS Technologies photo. The threats to maneuver-force ground vehicles and their crews today are in many ways akin to what platforms faced in Iraq and Afghanistan faced years ago. The need for mechanical systems to drive sensors and computers for command and control and situational awareness, for example, remains relevant today. Back then, maneuver forces needed 360-degree cameras to help identify subtle changes in a given area, like a truck that wasn’t there the day before. The cameras required sophisticated data handling and storage systems that were stressed even under good conditions, as vehicles traversed rough terrain in all kinds of weather, with limited cooling and power, and perhaps with bombs exploding nearby.  In that environment, the systems also required filters to keep sand out of the ventilation, uninterruptible power supplies to prevent sudden shutdowns resulting in lost data – not uncommon on military vehicles – and removable data storage so the data collected by the vehicle can be shared with a command post. Steve Stuck is vice president of the Appliance and Server Engineering Group at NCS Technologies. “We designed several different iterations of that for a customer,” said Steve Stuck, Vice President of the Appliance and Server Engineering Group at NCS Technologies, which designs and builds custom computing solutions for mobile military platforms. “They used them in the field in Afghanistan and came back to us with lessons learned. We completely re-architected the design based on their feedback.” Subsequent versions proved resilient against just about anything short of physical destruction of the vehicle, Stuck says. The camera system is but one example of the type of requests NCS Technologies routinely fields today from its military customers trying to address threat scenarios across European, Indo-Pacific, and Middle East battlespace. Oftentimes, these customers know what capabilities they’re looking for and turn to NCS Technologies to bring them to fruition.” NCS does this in a variety of inventive ways.  Custom computing with a COTS twist Modern military platforms rely on advanced computing systems that must be protected against natural elements, extreme temperatures, and salt water, as well as decidedly human threats ranging from kinetics to supply chain sabotage. Ground vehicles are becoming smaller, more autonomous and mobile, amplifying the challenge. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Different platforms have varied missions, not to mention their own size, weight, power and cost (SWAP-C) requirements. In addition, data processing and storage systems must be compatible with other onboard electronics with which they connect – whether by design or not.  The company is often contracted to do technology insertion into legacy platforms, with the onboard electronics to which it must interface sometimes many years behind mainstream – necessitating some creativity in designing leading edge computer systems that can communicate with legacy systems. Checking all necessary boxes in an affordable way is complicated, but that’s what NCS Technologies regularly accomplishes with its builds. Ronald Keene is vice president of military business development for NCS Technologies. “Were dedicated to providing solutions that deliver performance, security, and reliability for every scenario that our customers put in front of us; that’s all,” said Ronald Keene, the company’s vice president of military business development. NCS packages commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) computing and storage components to fit within the space and power constraints of a given platform, be it a ship or combat vehicle, and ruggedizes them against all operational scenarios. The company relies on model-based systems engineering, additive manufacturing, and inventiveness to do this. “Almost everything we develop requires some degree of engineering, even if its a COTS offering; nobody wants something exactly the way they see it on the website,” Stuck noted. “Sometimes thats easy, sometimes thats harder.” Take, for example, the often-complex network of fans, ducts, and vents needed to prevent compute systems from overheating. Typically, fans draw and expel air from opposite sides of a system, but sometimes a customer needs customization for a specific vehicle integration. “A requirement came to us recently where airflow had to come from adjoining sides so were having to design the system in a very unconventional way,” Stuck said. “Were using off-the-shelf technology, but you dont find systems where airflow comes in the side and goes out the back. It doesnt exist in a normal environment.” That said, NCS is careful not to over-customize. “We dont want to add cost by driving a customization thats not necessary for the use case,” Keene said.  The role of additive manufacturing Not everything can be bought off the shelf, and this is especially true of the brackets and other hardware necessary to house, support, and protect sensitive computing systems customized for mobile military platforms and vessels. This is where NCS’s in-house additive manufacturing capability, colloquially known as 3D printing, comes into play. During the digital design and engineering process, NCS uses additive manufacturing to quickly build prototype component parts to see what works and what doesn’t. Having the additive manufacturing in house means that engineers can design several notional designs, print all three of them and see which one works best and move on. Even though these parts are manufactured in-house, the NCS division responsible for additive manufacturing is subject to the same quality controls as third parties. Additive manufacturing is also a valuable tool in making modifications relatively late in the design and production process. Stuck cited an example of this where a single semiconductor chip was overheating and the ability to cool it by increasing fan speed was found to increase Airborne Noise (ABN) and Structure-borne Noise (SBN) beyond allowable Environmental Qualification Testing (EQT) tolerances, resulting in a bit of a “Catch-22”.  A tight schedule precluded a system redesign, so NCS engineers designed and additively manufactured an unusually shaped plenum – a chamber where a substance is collected for distribution – that drew air from a specific spot and directed it toward the chip. Problem solved. Structured for success In an era where many companies are embracing vertical integration, NCS’s design and development organization has a horizontal structure that strings together disciplines including design, systems engineering, and manufacturing to tackle the complex challenges of SWAP-C. The company’s customer interfacing team, meanwhile, has deep expertise in specific mission areas. “We help drive the requirements working with our product management and engineering experts to devise an offering that specifically meets the business use case that the customers looking for,” Stuck says. The NCS engineering-design team in one area interfaces directly to the manufacturing engineering team to ensure that a specially designed product can be manufactured at scale. For example, when the engineering team designs a system to optimize airflow while minimizing costs, the manufacturing engineering team weighs in to ensure it can be built quickly and affordably, a process that can involve some compromises.  This horizontal back-and-forth manufacturing approach differs from siloed structures where engineering teams handoff designs to a production team that only then figures out how to build it. Instead of subcontracting for hardware fabrication and waiting for parts to be built, delivered, then tested for shock and vibration, and properly integrated, NCS keeps the entire process in-house, speeding design iteration, manufacturing, and quality control.  This approach also improves sustainment. NCS’ field products have an expected lifecycle as long as 8-10 years, so the company designs products with LRUs (line replaceable units) in mind to speed up field service should it become necessary, and to also enhance its customer’s support experience with a comprehensive sustainment offering. NCS Technologies packages COTS computing and storage components to fit within the space and power constraints of a given platform, be it a ship or combat vehicle, and ruggedizes them against all operational scenarios. NCS Technologies photo. Resilience testing and supply chain security Like any contractor, NCS wants to ship its products with a high confidence level that they will pass muster with the customer. The Navy, for example, requires that machinery, electronics, and structures to be deployed on ships pass MIL-DTL-901E Floating Shock Testing, also known as barge testing. This entails placing items on a covered barge in a deep-water pond that then is exposed to explosions at various depths and distances to ensure they can withstand the rigors of combat. NCS has in-house shock and vibration test equipment that can emulate the effects of barge testing. “Going to the barge, which is a required step in qualifying products or solutions for the Navy, is expensive and takes time to schedule,” Stuck says. “The last thing you want to do is go to the barge and fail.” Confidence in systems also applies to the supply chain and security of the industrial base. Combat-bound computer systems face threats before they reach the field in the form of counterfeit parts or chips deliberately infected with spyware or malware. To address this, NCS has partnered with another innovative Northern Virginia company to identify and counter supply chain threats by isolating and monitoring a device’s electromagnetic emissions. The resulting signatures are measured against an established baseline, using patented machine learning capabilities to identify differences that might be indicative of counterfeiting or malware. “Its powerful,” Stuck says. “Weve used this in our supply chain environment to make sure that a board that were using is what its supposed to be.”  It’s one more layer of resiliency that NCS Technologies brings to its military customers and OEMs.

[Category: Land Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Sponsored Post, additive manufacturing, Army, cyber security, Gamechanger, gamechanger ncs technologies, NCS Technologies, networks, Presented by NCS Technologies, sponsored content, Supply Chain, technology] [Link to media]

— Lockheed, Pentagon reach handshake deal for next 2 F-35 production lots

 

at 11/22/24 8:06am

An F-35B lands aboard Japans Izumo-class multi-functional destroyer JS Kaga (DDH-184) for the first time on Oct. 20, 2024. (Photo by Cmdr. Darin Russell.) WASHINGTON — After protracted negotiations, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have reached an informal agreement, known as a handshake deal, for the next two production lots of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the parties confirmed to Breaking Defense. “We have reached an initial agreement as part of ongoing negotiations for the Lot 18/19 Air Vehicle Production Contract,” the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and Lockheed said in a joint statement.  The statement did not share final quantities or prices, saying only that those figures will be disclosed “when a final agreement is signed.” The news was first reported by Air & Space Forces Magazine, which stated the agreement covers roughly 300 aircraft. Progress on F-35 negotiations is likely welcome news to Lockheed, which has recently been funding the tri-variant stealth fighter’s production out of pocket as talks dragged on. A Lockheed executive told Breaking Defense last year that the aerospace giant aimed to finalize the lot 18/19 deal by the end of 2023, marking a significant delay for the negotiations. The program has recently battled inflation woes, supply chain challenges and technical problems that halted deliveries of upgraded jets for a full year. It’s not clear what the price might be for the forthcoming jets, though Lockheed has telegraphed that inflation may hike costs. Jets in lots 15 through 17 came in at an average price of $82.5 million for the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, $109 million for the short takeoff and vertical landing F-35B and $102.1 million for the carrier-launched F-35C, Breaking Defense previously reported.  Unlike the previous contract structure that included three production lots, the upcoming F-35 deal only covers two. Officials have discussed lot 20 serving as the first multi-year production agreement. Lockheed maintains that its Fort Worth, Texas, plant can build 156 jets annually.  If the past is any guide, it could be several months before an agreement is inked. When the two parties reached a similar handshake agreement for lots 15-17 in July 2022, the contract was not finalized until December of that year.  Asked when Lockheed planned for the 18/19 deal to become official, a company spokesperson referred Breaking Defense to comments from Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave during the firm’s third quarter earnings call in October. Malave said then that company officials anticipated the lot 18/19 contract will be awarded this year.

[Category: Air Warfare, Pentagon, Air Force, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Jay Malave, Joint Program Office, Lockheed Martin] [Link to media]

— Lawmakers backing separate cyber force see opening with Trump’s return

 

at 11/22/24 6:20am

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the United Nations General Assembly seen on a laptop computer in Hastings on the Hudson, New York, U.S., on Tuesday, Sept. 22. 2020. (Tiffany Hagler-Geard/Bloomberg via Getty Images) WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has long pushed back against the establishment of a new military service dedicated to cyberspace, but with President-elect Donald Trump on his way back to the White House, a separate cyber force has a real shot at becoming a reality, according to experts and to lawmakers who support the move. “This change in administration potentially could give more impetus to the creation of a separate cyber service,” Quentin Hodgson, formerly the Pentagon’s director of Cyber Plans, told Breaking Defense. “[Trump] did that with the Space Force. It was something that the Department of Defense didnt want, but he decided he wanted it, and its possible that that could also happen with cyberspace.” Hodgson was hardly alone in connecting Trump’s then-controversial move to stand up the Space Force in 2019 to visions of what his second term could bring to the cyber realm. Among those who made the comparison to Breaking Defense was Rep. Pat Fallon, a Texas Republican and vocal supporter of the cyber force idea. “As the past half century has shown us, there will be naysayers and contrarians within the Pentagon who will do everything to slow-roll major changes. However, only six years ago, we had the same issue in the space domain,” Fallon said in an email. “We need concrete progress and limited stagnation in cyber, something I know the Trump Administration will emphasize throughout the next four years.” Fallon and Rep. Morgan Luttrell, another Texas Republican, authored an amendment in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act that called for an independent third-party study to help lawmakers and DoD leaders determine if a separate cyber force is necessary. The study is being conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. “Incumbent on the results of the commission, which I think will affirm the need for a cyber service, I believe there’s a good chance we will see [a cyber service] come to fruition in soon. The Trump administration has shown that they will not put up with the status quo, and will opt for bold action, if necessary, especially when US national security is at risk,” Fallon said.  Luttrell, like Fallon, said in an interview that he thought that if the third-party study came back recommending an independent cyber force, Trump would likely be on board, but ultimately, it is “most certainly the president’s call.” “As a congressional member, if I want to know the advancements in AI, technology, name any given space, where do I get to go to that? Do I have to go talk to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or go talk to [Cyber Command]?” Luttrell told Breaking Defense. “Or could I go to cyber force, talk to the leadership, like, ‘Hey, where are we?’ And then they could say, ‘This is where we stand. This is what we implemented.’” ‘These Guys Like To Build Things’ Outside experts agreed that a Trump administration would, as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Mark Montgomery put it, “look more favorably” on a separate cyber service. Montgomery, the senior director for FDD’s Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, said such a service could “address our poor cyber force generation efforts over the past decade.” Emily Harding, vice president of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Breaking Defense that the possibility of a cyber force under Trump’s second term is a “big shrug” and that she has “zero evidence” it’s in the works. But, she said, “I also know these guys like to build things, and you know they were the ones responsible for Space Force, so why not?”  She added that Trump’s seemingly close relationship with SpaceX founder and technology innovator Elon Musk — who was recently tapped by Trump to co-lead the new Department of Government Efficiency — is another factor that could lead to a cyber force.  “You could see somebody like Elon Musk understanding this in a way that you know other people might not. So I dont know. I think theres a decent chance that they pursue it. I think they should pursue it,” she said.  Harding said she primarily supports a cyber force because she believes an independent service will allow the military to find the most cyber-capable fighters.  “The kinds of skills that youre recruiting for in a cyber service or in a cyber role are very different from the kinds of skills youre recruiting for in what you consider the other branches of the military,” she said.  “I think you would want a different setup for recruiting and for training. In the other services, each one of them has a cyber skill set. They have a cyber specialty, but theres not necessarily the same path to advancement. So I think its worth it to create the separate service, to create the talent pipeline and the specific structures that you would need for reserve,” she added.  The Pentagon disagrees, arguing that the creation of a separate cyber force could create new challenges for the DoD in terms of understanding warfighting needs within each service.  “A cyber service might have some benefits in ease of administrative management, but we have a variety of …military services in the Department of Defense who perform a variety of missions,” Mieke Eoyang, deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, said last year. “Having a cyber service that is divorced from those particular mission sets may pose some challenges in understanding the warfighting needs of the services to provide cyber to enable that fight.”  “I think the question is that for people who think the cyber service is the answer to our … current challenges in cyber personnel management: be careful what you wish for,” she said. Related: ‘Be careful what you wish for:’ DoD official warns separate cyber force could pose new challenges Furthermore, at the end of September, the department formally requested that lawmakers shut down Fallon and Luttrell’s proposal for the independent assessment. DoD leaders contended that Congress had already called for an assessment of the current cyber landscape within the Pentagon, which included the potential for creating a cyber service in the 2023 NDAA.  Jacquelyn Schneider, a fellow at the Hoover Institution where she serves as the director of the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Simulation Initiative, is also against the creation of a new cyber service. She argued that rather than consolidating cyber expertise and infrastructure, it would lead to information silos that would make the military less effective in the cyber domain. “In a world in which warfare is inherently joint, every time you create these different organizations, you create information stove pipes,” said Schneider, who also previously served as a senior policy advisor to the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. Right now it’s unclear where exactly Trump stands, and his transition team did not respond to a request for comment.  But Scneider, too, said she could see a new cyber force taking shape under a Trump administration. “Trump likes to make services,” she said.

[Category: All Domain, Networks & Digital Warfare, 2025 NDAA, Congress, cyber security, cybersecurity, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, networks, Space Force, technology, trump transition, white house] [Link to media]

— Navy to sideline support ships, re-assign mariner crews amid worsening workforce shortages

 

at 11/21/24 2:00pm

The Military Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Big Horn (T-AO 198) conducts a fueling-at-sea with the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), July 10, 2024. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Rashan Jefferson) WASHINGTON — The Navy late last month approved a plan to put a number of Military Sealift Command logistics ships into extended maintenance periods as well as re-assign certain crews to higher priority vessels, the service announced today. “Our civil service mariners play invaluable roles providing continuous logistics support to our deployed naval forces, and they are working overtime to sustain that mission globally,” Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said in a written statement. “This initiative will not only address operational logistics challenges we face now, it will ensure that Military Sealift Command has policies, programs and incentives it needs to recruit and retain future generations of civil service mariners.” Military Sealift Command is responsible for managing civilian crews that operate the various support and auxiliary ships that resupply US Navy warships around the world. It employs roughly 5,500 civil service mariners, 1,500 contracted mariners, and operates 140 logistics supply ships, such as fleet replenishment oilers and dry cargo/ammunition ships. Rear Adm. Philip Sobeck, MSCs chief, told reporters ahead of the announcement that up to 17 ships would either be put into extended maintenance periods or undergo planned inactivation periods by the end of 2026, but declined to name specific vessels. USNI News first reported earlier this year the Navy was considering such a move. There is a critical shortage across the US, across the civilian mariner landscape, which certainly affects our ability to grow our Combat Logistics fleet and the other [government-owned, government-operated] ships, and our ability to fully generate ready forces, Sobeck said. This shortage is an industry-wide problem, and we find ourselves direct in direct competition [with commercial industry.] In fact, were just not competitive, he added, citing numerous obstacles MSCs mariners face, including delayed relief, extended deployment times and pay caps. By reassigning crews to higher priority vessels, the Navy is hoping to provide more predictable schedules for current crews and minimize overdue reliefs. The shortage of qualified merchant mariners has been a long-festering problem. Ann Phillips, head of the Transportation Departments Maritime Administration, told lawmakers last year that a 2017 study found, concurrent operations of the commercially operated U.S.-flagged fleet and sustained military sealift operations would require roughly 13,600 mariners with unlimited credentials. At that time, there were roughly 11,760 mariners who were both qualified and actively sailing, a deficit of more than 1,800. Sobeck declined to provide updated numbers on the mariner shortage writ large across the country, but said within his purview, MSC is currently coping with roughly 800- to 1,000-person shortages daily. The goal is to fully execute MSCs workforce initiative by the end of fiscal year 2026, he said. This brings us directly in line with [the chief of naval operations] Project 33 goal, ready to sustain high-end, joint and combined combat by 2027.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Ann Phillips, Military Sealift Command, Navy, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro, Rear Adm. Philip Sobeck] [Link to media]

— Space Force launches for ULA’s Vulcan slip to next year

 

at 11/21/24 12:55pm

ULA’s first Vulcan rocket lifts off from Space Launch Complex-41 at 2:18 a.m. EST on January 8, 2024. (United Launch Alliance photo) UPDATED 11/21/24 at 6:19 pm ET: After publication of this report, ULA confirmed that the two national security missions slated to ride on Vulcan are now planned for early next year. WASHINGTON — The United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan will not be able to conduct two planned national security missions on its launch manifest for this year after delays with certifying the heavy-lift rocket. The comments came hours after a Space Force official cast doubt that the missions could be completed before the end of 2024. ULA launched its second certification flight in October, roughly a month behind schedule, following a first flight in January that was nearly four years behind schedule. The Space Force is still assessing data from the October launch in partnership with ULA to support the certification that will pave the way for the rocket to carry national security payloads. But even if that blessing comes swiftly, the calendar is unforgiving.  With only six weeks left in the year, and other steps required like mounting payloads on the rocket, “we are getting challenged to be able to launch this year,” Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant, head of the Space Force’s Space Systems Command, told reporters this morning during a breakfast hosted by the Defense Writers Group.  And how much schedule margin is left for 2024? “Probably not much,” he replied, though he deferred to ULA for specifics. After publication of this report, a ULA spokesperson told Breaking Defense the two launch missions, USSF-106 and USSF-87, are now “planned for early next year.” Amid dominance by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, the Pentagon has been eager to field more launch providers to help foster competition, drive down costs and provide redundant launch options. ULA has since been racing to certify Vulcan, particularly after retiring the Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy rockets from military service. Two well-executed launches are requisite to achieve certification for carrying national security payloads, meaning ULA could soon be given the go-ahead for Defense Department missions following the October launch. The January launch was deemed a success, but there was an anomaly during the October flight with one of Vulcans solid rocket boosters that currently is under investigation. Nonetheless, Garrant noted, Vulcan was still able to achieve the criteria for certification by successfully continuing on its planned flight path. “If they are not launching by the end of the year, we would delay those launches,” Garrant said of the two national security missions on Vulcan’s manifest. “We are working with [ULA] to evaluate the data from their second flight, and they are making significant progress.” Garrant separately noted that the Space Force’s contract vehicle for launches, known as the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, is currently in limbo due to the ongoing continuing resolution (CR), which appears likely to stretch into 2025. The service in June awarded the first contracts under the latest NSSL iteration, called Phase 3, to ULA, SpaceX and Amazon founder Jeff Bezoss Blue Origin, for non-critical and/or lower altitude launches under the programs first lane. Due to the CR, the next tranche of awards under NSSL Phase 3 — for must-succeed missions under the programs Lane 2 — will not move forward until the full fiscal year 2025 budget is passed, Garrant said.  While ULA’s Vulcan has not been certified, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket has yet to even make its maiden flight — though that could occur this month. Still, Garrant indicated the Space Force expects the two companies will be able to compete against SpaceX for NSSL Phase 3, Lane 2 contracts. (SpaceX is currently the only certified launch provider for those missions.)  “We anticipate that they will be certified,” Garrant said of ULA and Blue Origin, though he added it’s “probably too early to say how” the Space Force would divvy up contract awards between the three potential providers once the FY25 budget is passed.  Theresa Hitchens contributed to this story.

[Category: Space, Blue Origin, continuing resolution, Elon Musk, Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant, National Security Space Launch, New Glenn, Space Force, SpaceX, ula, United Launch Alliance, Vulcan] [Link to media]

— Pentagon plans secure cloud pilot to defend small businesses from hackers

 

at 11/21/24 12:20pm

Two engineers working on laptop in a factory. (Getty stock image) WASHINGTON — Next year, the Pentagon’s Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) will launch a pilot project to create creating a secure, cloud-based enclave for small contractors, who often struggle to meet DoD’s extensive cybersecurity requirements. “Were building [a] secure cloud that we’ll offer as a platform and environment for all small business” that work with the Department of Defense, said Derrick Davis, director of industrial cybersecurity for SBP. While still very much a work-in-progress, the plan is to include a virtual desktop, secure communications and other tools for use by smaller firms, Davis told the GovExec Cybersecurity Futures Forum on Wednesday afternoon. The as-yet unnamed pilot will be run out of OSBP’s Project Spectrum. Created in the defense policy bill for 2019 [PDF], Spectrum provides online resources to educate contractors and a marketplace for government-vetted cybersecurity tools, but it hasn’t built such a comprehensive suite of services before. The plan is start small, initially recruiting firms that have prior experience working with DoD — “all you in this room know that you need a doctorate degree just to navigate the defense contractor process,” Davis said wryly — but still need cybersecurity help. One model that SBP is looking at is the Army’s two-year, $26 million pilot project, NCODE, which is also creating a secure cloud to host small businesses. “Thats a great program that they have, we’ve reviewed it within our office, were going to partner with those guys,” Davis told the GovExec conference. “I’m headed to the Pentagon after this to actually speak with the Army CIO, Mr. [Leo] Garciga, about NCODE.” Driving both initiatives is the realization that while big prime contractors can build extensive in-house cybersecurity teams, small businesses generally lack the resources to hire cyber experts or even buy the latest security software. “Especially just starting out, your laptop that you use to run your small business, its also your [personal] laptop that you use to manage your familys finances,” Davis said. “You may even help have your kid do their homework on your laptop.” But even tiny mom-and-pop shops working with the Defense Department can end up handling sensitive information or technology, or providing some obscure but critical component for a high-priority weapons system. So, besides the inevitable spammers and scammers that go after everyday internet users, small firms contracting with the Pentagon might be targeted by so-called “Advanced Persistent Threats,” Davis warned: Nation-states using sophisticated techniques and technologies to suck up vast amounts of defense-related data and look for unlocked backdoors into sensitive networks. “If were going to force companies to get compliant with CMMC [Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification], we should also, on the flip side, offer assistance, and thats what were trying to do,” Davis said. “But … when we do something, everybody wants it to be perfect. The problem is, as you know, it takes time.” “Have patience and grace with us,” he told the GovExec audience. “We’re just trying to help.”

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, cyber security, cybersecurity, Derrick Davis, DoD Office of Small Business Programs - OSBP, networks, small business, technology] [Link to media]

— Romania signs LOA to secure entry to F-35 club

 

at 11/21/24 11:25am

Romania has ordered 32 F-35A fifth generation fighter jets, joining a host of other European nations (US Embassy in Romania) BELFAST — Romania has formally committed to the acquisition of 32 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fifth-generation fighter jets after signing a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) today. The procurement is valued at approximately $6.4 billion. Romania joins a wide base of European customers for the platform including Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK. Reacting to the inking of the LOA, Lockheed Martin said in a company statement, This decision marks a significant milestone in Romanias defense strategy and its commitment to maintaining a robust and advanced military force. Lt. Gen Mike Schmidt, director and program executive officer of the F-35 Joint Program Office said in the statement, The integration of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft into the Romanian Air Force will significantly strengthen NATOs deterrence capabilities by providing unmatched strategic, operational, and tactical advantages. He added, The F-35 Joint Program Office is dedicated to continuing a strong relationship with Romania, ensuring a successful transition and providing comprehensive support for their pilots and maintainers as we move forward together on this great effort. US Ambassador to Romania Kathleen Kavalec told reporters at the LOA signing ceremony in Bucharest, We expect by 2030 these planes will be flying above Romania, and that in the interim, the southeastern European country will continue to benefit from its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16 fourth-generation planes, while transition to the F-35 will be supported by a F-16 training center. The F-35 order will take Romania even a step forward, [beyond the F-16 protecting national borders] both on behalf of Romanian security, but also on behalf of the NATO Alliance, she said. Because these planes will also be part of air policing, Romania participates in NATO wide air policing, air policing occurs here in Romania, it occurs in other parts of NATO territory, so this will allow Romania to keep up with the rest of the alliance and to have an even stronger security footprint.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Europe, F-35, Lockheed Martin, NATO, Romania] [Link to media]

— As adversaries attack, Pentagon’s zero trust office shifts focus to protecting ‘operational technology’

 

at 11/21/24 8:50am

Chief of the Department of Defense Zero Trust Portfolio Management Office Randy Resnick (right), and DoD Senior Information Security Officer, David McKeown (left), hold an off-camera, on-the-record virtual press briefing on the release of the DoD Zero Trust Strategy and Roadmap at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., Nov. 22, 2022. DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jack Sanders. WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s zero trust office has “pivoted” from a focus on shoring up the Defense Departments information technology to better securing whats known as operational technology (OT) and weapon systems from foreign hackers, the office’s director said Tuesday. “For OT and weapon systems, we are coming out with initial zero trust guidance. Why? Because the adversary is attacking, Randy Resnick, the director of the Zero Trust Office within the department’s Chief Information Office, told Breaking Defense Tuesday. The adversary wants to get into weapon systems to prevent their launch, or mess with the GPS coordinates, so the DoD is looking to initially secure these things beyond what they are today. Resnick, who spoke to Breaking Defense on the sidelines of an event put on by the tech firm Red Hat, said in public remarks that his office has pivoted over the last six months to thinking about OT. He said defense critical infrastructure, including weapon systems, will follow.  “OT also has vulnerabilities that we are concerned about, he said. Unlike IT that primarily deals with software and data, OT generally refers to systems and devices that control physical processes, like thermostats, water tanks and machinery on a factory floor. Theyre key components in critical infrastructure for civilians, but also in the sprawling defense ecosystem of facilities and systems. Defense critical infrastructure, meanwhile, is more related to weapons systems, Resnik said. Resnick said that language in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act mandated that the Pentagon focus on zero trust for IT, OT and DCI. As a result, Resnick’s office stood up the plan to transition to a zero-trust cybersecurity framework by the end of fiscal year 2027, which plans to have zero trust fully implemented into IT by that time.  Given adversarial threats and the department’s progress in implementing zero trust into IT, Resnick said the next step is to create guidance for implementing zero trust in OT and then eventually DCI.  “At the end of [2027] were going to have a number of successes that achieve [our 2027] target, if not [advancing it], he said of the IT zero trust strategy during the panel.   “We are going to be coming out with guidance for OT, and thatll probably come out at the end of summer [2025] and well have a date beyond 2027 where we start establishing ZT [zero trust] into OT. “Then, of course, were also concerned about defense critical infrastructure, so thats another thing,” he added.  The Costs Of An OT Attack If adversaries are able to hack into the DoD’s OT like machinery in factories, it could lead to catastrophic results, Resnick warned.  “The DoD leases and owns factories, the communication between every single piece of equipment is not IT. So its OT, okay, the whole factory runs on OT,” he told Breaking Defense. “If they coordinated across 10 to 15 things simultaneously, it means a tremendous amount.” “It could shut the factory down for a period of time until they’ve recovered. DoD could be put out for a month. I hope not, but thats the worst case scenario. Its a point of vulnerability, its a point of attack. The whole point of zero trust is to prevent these attacks in a modern day sense,” he added.  Resnick explained that vulnerabilities in OT can lead to threat actors hacking into IT as well because OT is often connected to IT or the internet because that’s how the OT systems communicate with each other — think the Internet of Things. “This creates a back door to get to IT, so I could break into OT, and its called ‘swim upstream.’ I want to prevent that,” he said. 

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, cyber security, cybersecurity, DoD CIO, Information Technology, networks, randy resnick, technology, zero trust] [Link to media]

— Israel likely partner for Greece as it looks for integrated air defense systems

 

at 11/21/24 7:29am

The Army has two Iron Dome batteries and is fielding both at JBLM. (David Huskey/DVIDS) JERUSALEM — Greece is kicking the tires on Israeli-made air defense systems, as the NATO nation seeks to build a multi-layered air defense system capable of countering both enemy jets and low-level drones, sources confirm to Breaking Defense. News of Greece’s interest was first reported by Reuters, with the Greek daily Ekathimerini reporting that the multi-layered systems could surpass $2 billion in cost. “The defenses would likely mimic Israel’s Iron Dome and other systems that intercept short- and long-range missiles launched during strikes from its neighbors amid the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon,” per Ekathimerini. A pair of sources told Breaking Defense that Greece is in the fact-finding process of what systems Israeli might be willing to sell, and while it appears Athens plans to cast a wide net as it looks for options, the two are a clear match: Israel, which has grown closer to Greece in recent years, already possesses a multi-layered air defense system, all parts of which are in varying states of being sold or used by other countries. Rafael Advanced Defense Systems makes the short-range Iron Dome system, used primarily against rockets and small drones; that system is soon to incorporate laser air defenses as well. Rafael also makes the medium-range system David’s Sling, which was jointly developed with the US and has been sold to Finland, as well as the Spyder, which can defend against aircraft and other threats. IAI makes Arrow, an exoatmospheric defense system jointly developed with the US which has been sold to Germany, as well as the Barak air defense system. IAIs Elta also makes the air defense radars used with Iron Dome, radars that have been sold to Czech Republic and Slovakia. The initial Reuters report came after a closed door briefing in Israel with Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias, who has emerged as a key figure in advancing Israel’s closer ties with Athens. A former foreign minister for Greece, Dendias visited Israel in August 2023 and met with then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. “We discussed the important achievements of our Strategic Defence Relationship and expressed our wish to further broaden it,” he wrote on social media. He highlighted the joint exercises between Israel and Greece and also said that Athens and Jerusalem had “agreed to enhance our mutually beneficial cooperation in the area of defence research and technology with the involvement of the defence industry, research institutions, and other innovation bodies.” The Israel-Greece ties are part of a growing context of emerging partnerships in the eastern Mediterranean that also include Cyprus. This trilateral relationship is the background in which Athens’ interest in a multi-layered defense system have emerged, noted Eran Lerman, a former Israeli deputy national security advisor and now vice-president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. He said he uses the term “alignment” for these ties, as opposed to “alliance,” because there aren’t agreements on the horizon involving mutual defense. “It’s enough to generate intelligence cooperation, military training — this is essentially a triangular relationship because the Cypriots are part of this story,” Lerman said, citing two key ways the relationship with Cyprus is benefitting Israel. The first is training in Cyprus for units such as Israeli commandos, which helps them familiarize with long-range operations in terrain similar to Lebanon. The second development is that Cyprus can be a logistical backstop if there are interruptions in trade with Israel — for instance, when flights were cancelled due to the recent war with Hamas and Hezbollah, airlines would fly to Cyprus and then Israeli jets would take them the rest of the way. “That’s not a trivial matter when we faced the possibility of serious limitation on flights to Israel,” Lerman added. The burgeoning ties also have roots in joint drills with Greece, where Lerman says there has been “close cooperation, particularly with the air forces.” Israel has participated in the annual multi-national air exercise called Iniochos in Greece and the Greeks have participated in Blue Flag, a semi-annual air force drill in Israel. In addition, Israel is deliver M-346 training aircraft to Greece as part of a government-to-government deal, and Israel’s Elbit Systems is creating a flight training center in Greece.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, air and missile defense, air defense, Air Force, Army, Arrow, Europe, Greece, In Focus Air Defenses, Iron Dome, Israel, Israel Aerospace Industries IAI, Middle East, Rafael] [Link to media]

— Anduril could receive up to $100M for Space Surveillance Network upgrade

 

at 11/21/24 6:00am

A sunset view of Maui Space Surveillance System on Mount Haleakala, above the clouds at 10,000 feet. (US Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III) WASHINGTON — The Space Force has awarded artificial intelligence startup Anduril a contract worth up to almost $100 million to create a modern, machine-to-machine communications network to link sensors for monitoring the heavens to command and control (C2) systems and data analysts, the company announced today. The indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, managed by Space Force Space Systems Command, covers a five-year program to deliver its Lattice software to US Space Command (SPACECOM) as a resilient mesh networking capability to modernize the Space Surveillance Network (SSN), Andurils press release said. The U.S. Space Command has mandated full deployment by the end of 2026, the release added. The SSN is composed of primarily ground-based radars and telescopes that detect and track objects in space, ranging from active satellites to debris such as jettisoned rocket bodies and pieces from satellite breakups. That observational data is downlinked to SPACECOM computer systems for use by analysts who are charged with characterizing whether those objects present threats to US and allied space systems — as well as figuring out whether any are on a course to potentially collide with other space objects, especially any operational satellites. Andurils mesh network, called the Space Domain Awareness Network (SDANet), includes hardware that will be deployed at every SSN sensor type over the next two years, a company official told Breaking Defense. That hardware will use the Lattice open software platform, which can bring in data from any type of sensor, then employ machine learning to process that information and fuze it, and finally distribute the results. SDANet will replace SPACECOMs Space Defense Interface Network, which is a 40-year-old system of point-to-point network connections leveraging serial lines coupled with aging infrastructure used by SSN sensors, the company official said. That legacy network can only move data at speeds of roughly one-tenth of old dial up internet (i.e., ~4,800 Baud), the official explained, and doesnt have any way to automatically reroute data if any part of the network goes down. SDANet thus will increase the level of connectivity between sensors, command and control systems, and data platforms to drastically decrease communications/messaging latency, increase availability/resiliency, and enable new concepts of operations essential to space warfighting operations currently not possible with legacy communications systems, Andurils press release said. Specifically, the company official said, the new network will be transporting and translating data from SSN telescopes and radars to the C2 systems at Space Force Delta 2s 18th Space Defense Squadron at Vandenberg SFB, Calif. and 19th Space Defense Squadron at the Naval Support Facility Dahlgren, Va. The 18th Space Defense Squadron is the primary space domain awareness unit for SPACECOM, and is charged with C2 of the SSN sensors and managing the commands computerized database of space objects, according to a Space Force fact sheet. It also is responsible for sharing space tracking data with Defense Department, interagency, commercial, international and academic users. The 19th Space Defense Squadron provides tasking orders to the SSN sensors to maintain up-to-date orbital parameters for over 40,000 man-made Earth-orbiting objects, according to a Space Force fact sheet. In particular, its role includes expanding cislunar and extra-geosynchronous awareness via current SSN and commercial capabilities and contributing to space-based environmental monitoring missions. Andurils network already is operational at a subset of the SSN sites in Maui, Hawaii, via an experimental program with Space Systems Command first initiated in November 2022. Under that program, the Anduril official explained, the SDANet is feeding data to the Non-traditional Data Pre-Processor system built by L3Harris — essentially one of a series of software patches that have been developed over two-plus decades of unsuccessful efforts to overhaul the aging computer processing, data analysis and C2 systems used by SPACECOM to manage space domain awareness operations, and enable integration of new sensors and observational data. Specifically, the official said, the Non-traditional Data Pre-Processor feeds Andurils SDANet data to SPACECOMs 1980s-era Space Defense Operations Center (SPADOC) computer system and software. SPADOC links directly with legacy SSN sensors, pulls it down, and processes it. That pre-processor also will be used to feed data into SPADOCs replacement system, called ATLAS (Advanced Tracking and Launch Analysis System) also being developed by L3Harris. ATLAS, however, is facing it own developmental problems. SDANet further will enable connections to various mission partners that currently rely on this data for intelligence and analysis mission sets, the Anduril official said. The Defense Department and the services began experimenting with Andurils AI-powered Lattice platform as long ago as 2020, including for counter-drone operations — winning a $1 billion contract from US Special Operations Command in 2022 — and as an enabler of its ambitious Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept. Further, Anduril has ambitious plans for its own constellation of space monitoring satellites, to be launched by 2025, based on Lattice.

[Category: All Domain, Space, 18th Space Defense Squadron, 19th Space Defense Squadron, All Domain Operations, Anduril, ATLAS software, Joint All Domain Command and Control JADC2, L3Harris, Lattice, space command, Space Defense Operations Center (SPADOC), Space Delta 2, space domain awareness SDA, Space Force] [Link to media]

— Norway puts France, Germany, UK and US in the frame for future frigate partnership

 

at 11/20/24 2:53pm

Norway is looking to replace aging Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates through a strategic partnership with one of four newly shortlisted nations (Norwegian government) BELFAST — Norway has officially shortlisted four countries it will consider as options to support a future frigate strategic partnership. France, Germany, the UK and the US are set to receive invitations to begin discussions on the matter, said the Norwegian Ministry of Defence in a Wednesday statement. Although Norways statement does not say what designs are up for discussion, it is expected that the options will cover Frances Defense and Intervention Frigate (FDI), Germanys F126, the UK Type 26/City-Class and/or Type 31, and the US Constellation-class. “The new frigates represent the largest acquisition planned for the Norwegian Armed Forces in the coming years,” Bjørn Arild Gram, Norway’s Minister of Defence, is quoted as saying. “Norway is an important maritime nation in NATO, and through this and other maritime investments we will be strengthening both national and allied security. A strategic partner for the effort is due to be picked in 2025. Between five and six new frigates could be ordered to meet a requirement set out in Norway’s long term defense plan. The future ships will also be capable of embarking anti-submarine helicopters. Additionally, the proposed partnership will cover “joint acquisition, operation, maintenance, continuous development and upgrades of the new frigates throughout their service life,” per the MoD statement. Oslo is focused on joining an active production frigate program in order to minimize the need for Fridtjof Nansen-class upgrades. “Solid and predictable cooperation on both security and defence policy will be at the heart of the strategic partnership that we envision, which will include everything from force generation to operations and joint development of new capabilities,” said Arild Gram. “It is therefore essential that we and our partners have the same long-term interests.” The frigate partnership push comes on the heels of Gen. Eirik Kristoffersen, Norways Chief of Defense, telling Breaking Defense in April that, we need to work in close cooperation with one ally. We need the same frigate as another ally. We cannot be the one user of a system, we are too small for that. Such an outlook also mirrors Norways favored approach to submarine investment, where it has opted for a joint procurement with Germany of Thyssenkrupp-made 212CD class vessels. A first Norwegian sub, of four on order, underwent construction at the shipbuilders Kiel yard in September last year.

[Category: Global, Naval Warfare, Constellation-class frigate, Europe, france, Germany, Navy, Norway, UK] [Link to media]

— Army picks Red Cat’s small quadcopter for 2nd Short-Range Reconnaissance tranche

 

at 11/20/24 2:01pm

A soldier flies a Red Cat quadcopter in this image from the company. (Red Cat) WASHINGTON — The US Army announced it has picked systems made by Red Cat subsidiary Teal Drones for the service’s Short-Range Reconnaissance (SRR) program of record. After the company preempted the service announcement on Tuesday, the Army confirmed today that it had selected Red Cat’s quadcopter for SRR but noted that “exact funding, quantities, and other details” will be hammered out throughout the rest of the year as the duo work though the contract details. “The selection was made based on a combination of criteria that included soldier feedback, performance, and reliability during the SRR tranche 2 prototyping effort,” an Army spokesman said in a brief statement. The Army spokesman did not disclose if Red Cat’s small Teal drone would be the only drone selected for this second tranche but noted that the program office is focused on fostering competition among companies and will be continually assessing new technologies for future tranches. “The long-awaited production selection marks a new era for our company and the future of American drones,” George Matus, Red Cat’s chief technology officer, said in an announcement on Wednesday. “Our top priority now is to start ramping production of the next generation system, recently announced as the Black Widow and WEB, and give warfighters the tools they need to be successful on the modern battlefield,” he later added. Skydio’s RQ-28A quadcopter was picked as the first tranche of the SRR program and was first delivered to soldiers in 2022, one of which noted at the time that the man-portable drones were so new that the service didn’t have tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for using them in operations. The service is moving out on plans to acquire and field a host of new aerial drones to provide soldiers at every echelon with a system. That plan includes: The Soldier Borne Sensor like Teledyne Flir’s Black Hornet 3 to squads  The SRR assets to platoons level; A medium-range reconnaissance drone like Ghost X from Anduril Industries and the C-100 from Performance Drone Works for company formations; A Future Tactical Uncrewed Aircraft System (FTUAS) aligned with brigades; and The conceptual long-range reconnaissance drone as a follow on or replacement for General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle for battalions.

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, Air Force, Army, Drones, red cat] [Link to media]

— AUKUS will ‘cannibalize’ other programs with no budget boost: Former top Aussie general

 

at 11/20/24 1:47pm

Sir Angus Houston (L) delivers the Defence Strategic Review 2023 to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Deputy PM and Minister of Defence Richard Marles at Parliament House on February 14, 2023 in Canberra, Australia. (Photo by Martin Ollman/Getty Images) SYDNEY — Sounding the alarm that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal will eat into non-naval priorities, the former head of the Australian Defense Force today called for a significant boost in defense spending, up to 3 percent of GDP. Sir Angus Houston was Australias top military officer from 2005-2011 and was tapped to co-lead the recent Defense Strategic Review, making him a key, respected voice on matters of defense. While the DSR TKTKT, his comments today reflect what he sees as changed situation. The review and its Integrated Investment Plan projected a $55.5 billion AUD budget for 2024-25, rising to $67.9 billion in 2027-28 — roughly 2.2 percent of GDP. Part of that is simply acknowledging that the world is much more dangerous than when the review was completed in early 2023. When the strategy was published Houston made headlines with his claims that Australia faced the most dire strategic situation since World War II, and the situation has only expanded, with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the back and forth between several actors in the Middle East, a modernized and aggressive China and the increasingly close ties between North Korea, China, Russia and Iran. But in comments at the US Studies Centre here, Houston made clear he wasnt just talking about spending more because of the threats. He made an important structural point, that Australia must increase its defense spending so that buying and building nuclear powered attack submarines — the AUKUS program with the US and UK — does not consume too much of the defense budget. Houston said the AUKUS boats must be a net addition to Australias military capability. The only way they can be a net addition to Australian military capability is to increase our defense spending by 3 percent plus of GDP as we move into and through the 2030s. If that does not happen, it will mean the military can only buy the subs through the cannibalization of other military capability. So that is the challenge for us. And I dont think either side of the body politic in Australia has really come to terms with that. The question of whether AUKUS will eat up other programs for the Australian defense community has been an open one ever since the project, the most expensive endeavor in the countrys history, was launched. Officials have largely towed the line that the Lucky Country can do everything. For instance, Richard Vagg, the service’s head of Land Capability, told Breaking Defense in October that he was not concerned about losing out to AUKUS, noting we’ve made some very, very considered decisions about our investment plans from a ADF perspective, and are quite comfortable where we’re sitting in terms of our land projects. However, there may be signs of budget pressure emerging already. Earlier this month, Australia killed a $5.3 billion AUD satellite contract with Lockheed Martin, with one analyst saying more cuts will likely have to happen as the true cost of AUKUS emerges. The current government in Canberra has pledged to increase defense spending by $50.3 billion over the next decade, with the plan being to hit $100 billion by 2033. That would put the country at 2.4 percent — well below what Houston believes is needed. Relations With Trump Earlier in the conference, US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, who wont have a government job after Jan. 20, urged the incoming Trump administration to work closely with Australia and New Zealand to counter a relentless China and not to turn inward. China is relentless. They want to build bases. They want to extend their power there. We are going to have to do more, and do more with Australia and New Zealand, he told the conference on a feed from Washington. “This is a time right now to be innovative, to be optimistic, to work, to make the argument about why common purpose is in our best interests, and why the United States should not withdraw from the world, from partnerships, to work more closely than ever with Indo-Pacific partners. Nowhere is that more important than Australia. RELATED: AUKUS faces little threat from Trump, Aussie officials say Campbell made a direct appeal to the presumptive Secretary of State in the Trump administration, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Trump has talked about large cuts to the State Department and other parts of the US foreign policy structure and his public rhetoric is about America First, which could mean ignoring or withdrawing from engagement in the Indo-Pacific. My hope is that Senator Rubio, the Trump administration, will recognize that this is a moment of acute strategic competition, the deputy said. A range of speakers from Japan, the United States and Australia said at the conference they thought the Trump White House would support AUKUS, citing the incoming presidents penchant for transactional diplomacy. Australia is spending billions to buy and build nuclear-powered attack boats, is helping the US expand its industrial base and Trump is likely to recognize that, they said. Unlike some NATO countries, which Trump has criticized for spending too little, Australia has committed more than $6 billion USD to expanding the tripartite sub industrial base and plans to spend a total of $368 billion on Virginia- and SSN AUKUS-class subs.

[Category: Global, Naval Warfare, Asia, AUKUS, australia, Australia Defense Strategic Review, China, Indo-Pacific, Kurt Campbell, Navy, new zealand, Sir Angus Houston, US Studies Centre, Virginia class submarine] [Link to media]

— Turkey joins drone-carrier operations club with first takeoff and landing from Turkish ship

 

at 11/20/24 12:45pm

Bayraktar TB3 prepares to take off from Turkish ship TCG Anadolu. (Photo credit: Baykar) BEIRUT — Turkish firm Baykars unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) Bayraktar TB3 performed its first successful flight test to take off and land on the Turkish ship TCG Anadolu, a short runway vessel, the firm said Tuesday in a statement. “The flight, conducted at the convergence of the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, lasted for 46 minutes before the aircraft successfully landed back on the same short runway, without the need for any landing support equipment,” Baykar said in the statement. Bayraktar TB3 performed the test on Nov. 19 after completing open-sea shipboard trials. The drone had completed its maiden flight from land in October 2023, and Tuesday it became the first Turkish UAV to be deployed from the drone carrier TCG Anadolu. The vessel is expected to also host Bayraktar TB3 and Kizilelma drones. Bayraktar TB3 PT1 and PT2 UCAVs underwent flight trainings from the company’s Flight Training and Test Center in Edirne to Dalaman Air Base Command. Bayraktar TB3 PT1 was deployed in flights during day and night on TCG Anadolu and “successfully complet[ed] Approach Tests without any issues, according to the statement. Though the company hailed the takeoff and landing as a world first from a short-runway ship, other drones have executed flights from maritime vessels before, including US drone-maker General Atomicss Mojave, which conducted a short takeoff and landing from the UK Royal Navys HMS Prince of Wales a year ago this month. Bakyar did not respond to a request for additional comment by press time. Either way, the demonstration shows the continued interest of the worlds navies in carrier-drone operations. Beyond the Mojave tests, the US Navy is pushing ahead with carrier-based drone control rooms. In May reports emerged that China may have constructed a relatively small carrier specifically designed for drone operations.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Naval Warfare, Air Force, baykar, Bayraktar TB3, Drones, Middle East, Navy, Short takeoff and landing / STOL, TCG Anadolu, turkey] [Link to media]

— INDOPACOM’s Paparo acknowledges stockpile shortages may impact his readiness

 

at 11/20/24 12:08pm

Adm. Samuel Paparo receives a tour of the ballistic missile submarine USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN 730) during a tour of Naval Base Kitsap (NBK)-Bangor, Wash. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Brian G. Reynolds) WASHINGTON — As the American weapons packages for Ukraine and Israel have started to include increasingly more complicated systems, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command conceded finite munitions stockpiles could mean American assistance heading elsewhere around the world will impact the readiness of his own forces. “Up to this year, where most of the employment of weapons were really artillery pieces and short-ranged weapons, I had said not at all,” Adm. Samuel Paparo told an audience at the Brookings Institute yesterday when asked about the issue. “But now, with some of the Patriots that have been employed, some of the air-to-air missiles that have been employed, it’s now eating into stocks … and to say otherwise would be dishonest,” he continued. As commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, Paparo is the most senior American military officer who is tasked on a daily basis with managing aggression from China as well as aiding in diplomatic efforts with other key US allies and partners in the region. He went on to say that the United States’s stockpiles are “fungible” across all the possible military theaters they may be used in. Additionally he said his area of responsibility, however important it may be given the Pentagon’s rhetoric, has nothing “reserved.” RELATED: Up our game: The Pentagons 3 strategies to shore up munitions stockpiles “Inherently, it imposes costs on the readiness of America to respond in the Indo-Pacific region, which is the most stressing theater for the quantity and quality of munitions, because [China] is the most capable potential adversary in the world,” he said. When asked if he agrees with Paparos assessment, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said today he had not seen the admirals comments but every time we do a presidential drawdown, we take things that we have in our stocks, provide them to the country in need, and theres been a significant need, and then we replace those items with new items and better items. And those munitions and those weapons are built in the United States of America. That creates jobs, he continued. It puts us in a better position militarily but it takes a little time and we recognize that. So we work with industry to expand capacity in our industrial base and thats happening. In many cases industry has is rising to meet the demand, meet the challenge, and were going to continue to do that. The admission, though reserved, is significant coming from someone as senior as Paparo. The notion that America’s aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia is hampering the country’s ability to respond to China and potentially assist Taiwan has gained an audience in certain sectors of the GOP. Those criticisms intensified last October as it became clear the US would also divert some of its munitions — as well as key assets like capital warships — to the Middle East to help defend Israel. When called to testify in front of lawmakers, senior military officials from across the services have acknowledged the packages to Ukraine and Israel have made a noticeable dent in the stockpiles held for US forces. But at a policy level, the Biden administration has made assisting Ukraine a top priority and staved off suggestions that the US must choose between helping Ukraine or preparing to counter China. That could soon change. Some of Trump’s allies in the GOP have been the most vocal in their criticisms against continuing to send weapons to Ukraine, and with Republicans controlling both the White House and the two chambers of Congress, continued support to Ukraine is anything but assured. When pressed about whether Taiwan should be “concerned” about US stockpiles and the effect multiple global conflicts are having on them, Paparo said, “When you say concerned — should it keep them up at night? “We should replenish those stocks,” he continued. “I was already dissatisfied with the magazine depth. I’m a little more dissatisfied with the magazine depth.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Naval Warfare, Adm. Samuel Paparo, Air Force, Asia, Indo-Pacific, Israel, Navy, Patriot, Ukraine] [Link to media]

As of 11/22/24 10:24pm. Last new 11/22/24 9:35am.