How DoD can improve its technology resilience

Mark Pomerleau

WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense must bolster its resilience in mission platforms in order to stay ahead of threats, a new think tank report says.

With the military's shift toward great power competition, or conflict against nation states, its systems and platforms will be under greater stress than technological inferior adversaries battled during the counterterrorism fight of the last decade-plus.

Systems and networks are expected to be contested, disrupted and even destroyed, meaning officials need to build redundancy and resilience in from the start to work through such challenges. In fact, top defense officials have been warning for several years that they are engaged in conflict that is taking place below the threshold of armed conflict in which adversaries are probing networks and systems daily for espionage or disruptive purposes.

“Resilience is a key challenge for combat mission systems in the defense community as a result of accumulating technical debt, outdated procurement frameworks, and a recurring failure to prioritize learning over compliance. The result is brittle technology systems and organizations strained to the point of compromising basic mission functions in the face of changing technology and evolving threats,” said a new report out today by the Atlantic Council titled “How Do You Fix a Flying Computer? Seeking Resilience in Software-Intensive Mission Systems.”

“Mission resilience must be a priority area of work for the defense community. Resilience offers a critical pathway to sustain the long-term utility of software-intensive mission systems, while avoiding organizational brittleness in technology use and resulting national security risks. The United States and its allies face an unprecedented defense landscape in the 2020s and beyond.”

This resilience, is built upon three pillars, the authors write: robustness, which is the ability of a system to negate the impact of disruption; responsiveness, which is the ability of a system to provide feedback and incorporate changes on a disruption, and; adaptability, which is the ability to a system to change itself to continue operating despite a disruption.

Systems, the report notes, are more than just the sum of its parts — hardware and software — but rather are much broader to include people, organizational processes and technologies.

To date, DoD has struggled to manage complexity and develop robust and reliable mission systems, even in a relatively benign environment, the report bluntly asserts, citing problems with the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) as one key example.

“A conflict or more contested environment would only exacerbate these issues. The F-35 is not alone in a generation of combat systems so dependent on IT and software that failures in code are as critical as a malfunctioning munition or faulty engine — other examples include Navy ships and military satellites,” the authors write. “To ensure mission systems like the F-35 remain available, capable, and lethal in conflicts to come demands the United States and its allies prioritize the resilience of these systems. Not merely security against compromise, mission resilience is the ability of a mission system to prevent, respond to, and adapt to both anticipated and unanticipated disruptions, to optimize efficacy under uncertainty, and to maximize value over the long term. Adaptability is measured by the capacity to change — not only to modify lines of software code, but to overturn and replace the entire organization and the processes by which it performs the mission, if necessary. Any aspect that an organization cannot or will not change may turn out to be the weakest link, or at least a highly reliable target for an adversary.”

The report offers four principles that defense organizations can undertake to me more resilient in future conflicts against sophisticated adversaries:

Embrace failure: DoD must be more willing to take risks and embrace failure to stay ahead of the curve. Organizations can adopt concepts such as chaos engineering, experimenting on a system to build confidence in its ability to withstand turbulent conditions in production, and planning for loss of confidentiality in compromised systems.
Improve speed: DoD must be faster at adapting and developing, which includes improving its antiquated acquisition policies and adopt agile methodologies of continuous integration and delivery. Of note, DoD has created a software acquisition pathway and is implementing agile methodologies of continuous integration and delivery, though on small scales.
Always be learning: Defense organizations operate in a highly contested cyber environment, the report notes, and as the department grows more complex, how it learns and adapts to rapidly evolving threats grows in importance. Thus, it must embrace experimentation and continuous learning at all levels of systems as a tool to drive improvement.
Manage trade-offs and complexity: DoD should improve mission system programs' understanding of the trade-offs between near-term functionality and long-term complexity to include their impact on systems' resilience.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/12/14/how-dod-can-improve-its-technology-resilience/

On the same subject

April 14, 2020

DARPA SBIR/STTR Opportunities
On April 8, 2020, the DARPA Small Business Programs Office (SBPO) pre-released the following SBIR/STTR Opportunities (SBOs): "Seabed Simulation Synthesis", Announcement Number HR001120S0019-04, published at https://beta.sam.gov/search?keywords=HR001120S0019-04 "Wearable Laser Detection and Alert System", Announcement Number HR001120S0019-05, published at https://beta.sam.gov/search?keywords=HR001120S0019-05 "Open Source Wide Band Software Defined Acoustic Modem", Announcement Number HR001120S0019-06, published at https://beta.sam.gov/search?keywords=HR001120S0019-06 These SBOs will open for proposals on April 23, 2020 and close on May 26, 2020. If you have any questions on the open BAAs or DSIP, please contact the DSIP Help Desk Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. ET at 703-214-1333 or DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com. Thank you for your interest in the DoD SBIR/STTR Program. DoD SBIR/STTR Support Team
April 16, 2020

Technology alliances will help shape our post-pandemic future
Martijn Rasser There's no question the post-corona world will be very different. How it will look depends on actions the world's leaders take. Decisions made in coming months will determine whether we see a renewed commitment to a rules-based international order, or a fragmented world increasingly dominated by authoritarianism. Whomever steps up to lead will drive the outcome. China seeks the mantle of global leadership. Beijing is exploiting the global leadership vacuum, the fissures between the United States and its allies, and the growing strain on European unity. The Chinese Communist Party has aggressively pushed a narrative of acting swiftly and decisively to contain the virus, building goodwill through ‘mask diplomacy', and sowing doubts about the virus' origin to deflect blame for the magnitude of the crisis and to rewrite history. Even though the results so far are mixed, the absence of the United States on the global stage provides Beijing with good momentum. Before the pandemic, the world's democracies already faced their gravest challenge in decades: the shift of economic power to illiberal states. By late 2019, autocratic regimes accounted for a larger share of global GDP than democracies for the first time since 1900. As former U.K. foreign secretary David Miliband recently observed, “liberal democracy is in retreat.” How the United States and like-minded partners respond post-pandemic will determine if that trend holds. There is urgency to act — the problem is now even more acute. The countries that figure out how to quickly restart and rebuild their economies post-pandemic will set the course for the 21st century. It is not only economic heft that is of concern: political power and military might go hand in hand with economic dominance. At the center of this geostrategic and economic competition are technologies — artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and 5G — that will be the backbone of the 21st century economy. Leadership and ongoing innovation in these areas will confer critical economic, political, and military power, and the opportunity to shape global norms and values. The pre-crisis trajectory of waning clout in technology development, standards-setting, and proliferation posed an unacceptable and avoidable challenge to the interests of the world's leading liberal-democratic states. The current crisis accentuates this even more: it lays bare the need to rethink and restructure global supply chains; the imperative of ensuring telecommunication networks are secure, robust, and resilient; the ability to surge production of critical materiel, and the need to deter and counteract destructive disinformation. This is difficult and costly — and it is best done in concert. Bold action is needed to set a new course that enhances the ability of the world's democracies to out-compete increasingly capable illiberal states. The growing clout of authoritarian regimes is not rooted in better strategy or more effective statecraft. Rather, it lies in the fractious and complacent nature of the world's democracies and leading technology powers. In response, a new multilateral effort — an alliance framework — is needed to reverse these trends. The world's technology and democracy leaders — the G7 members and countries like Australia, the Netherlands, and South Korea — should join forces to tackle matters of technology policy. The purpose of this initiative is three-fold: one, regain the initiative in the global technology competition through strengthened cooperation between like-minded countries; two, protect and preserve key areas of competitive technological advantage; and three, promote collective norms and values around the use of emerging technologies. Such cooperation is vital to effectively deal with the hardest geopolitical issues that increasingly center on technology, from competing economically to building deterrence to combating disinformation. This group should not be an exclusive club: it should also work with countries like Finland and Sweden to align policies on telecommunications; Estonia, Israel, and New Zealand for cyber issues; and states around the world to craft efforts to counter the proliferation of Chinese surveillance technology and offer sound alternatives to infrastructure development, raw material extraction, and loans from China that erode their sovereignty. The spectrum of scale and ambition this alliance can tackle is broad. Better information sharing would yield benefits on matters like investment screening, counterespionage, and fighting disinformation. Investments in new semiconductor fabs could create more secure and diverse supply chains. A concerted effort to promote open architecture in 5G could usher in a paradigm shift for an entire industry. Collaboration will also be essential to avoiding another pandemic calamity. Similar ideas are percolating among current and former government leaders in capitals such as Tokyo, Berlin, London, and Washington, with thought leaders like Jared Cohen and Anja Manuel, and in think tanks around the world. The task at hand is to collate these ideas, find the common ground, and devise an executable plan. This requires tackling issues like organizational structure, governance, and institutionalization. It also requires making sure that stakeholders from government, industry, and civil society from around the world provide input to make the alliance framework realistic and successful. No one country can expect to achieve its full potential by going it alone, not even the United States. An alliance framework for technology policy is the best way to ensure that the world's democracies can effectively compete economically, politically, and militarily in the 21st century. The links between the world's leading democracies remain strong despite the challenges of the current crisis. These relationships are an enduring and critical advantage that no autocratic country can match. It is time to capitalize on these strengths, retake the initiative, and shape the post-corona world. Martijn Rasser is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/04/14/technology-alliances-will-help-shape-our-post-pandemic-future/
April 24, 2020

Impact of Covid-19 on commercial MRO
Opinion: How COVID-19 Has Already Changed Everything David Marcontell April 17, 2020 Oliver Wyman To say that COVID-19 is having a devastating effect on aviation is an understatement. With hundreds of millions of people living under stay-at-home orders and unemployment rates in the U.S. and Europe rising faster than they ever have, global airline capacity in available seat-miles is down 59% compared to what it was at this time last year. The International Air Transport Association is forecasting airline losses of $252 billion—a tally that has been revised upward twice in the last six weeks. At my own firm, we cut our 2020 forecast for demand in the MRO market by $17-35 billion to reflect the nearly 11,000 aircraft that have been taken out of service and the 50% drop in daily utilization for those that are still flying. Oliver Wyman also lowered its projection for new aircraft deliveries by 50-60% versus 2019 after a comprehensive review of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) build projections versus airline demand. Deliveries for most current-production models are expected to drop 50% or more in 2021 and 2022. As a result, we project that it will be well into 2022 before the global MRO market might return to the size it was before COVID-19. This crisis has gone well past the point of a V-shaped recovery. Lasting damage has been done, and not unlike the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or the 2008 global financial crisis, the behavior of governments, businesses and the public is likely to have been changed forever. Following 9/11, it took nearly 18 months for passenger traffic to return to its previous level, and when it finally did, travel looked very different than it had before the attacks. Passenger anxiety and the “hassle” factor associated with heightened airport security caused people to stay at home or drive. It took nearly a decade for the public to adjust to the new normal of commercial air travel. In a post-COVID-19 environment, it is not unrealistic to expect new screening protocols to be put in place to help manage the risk of reinfection or an emergence of new hot spots. Already, international public health officials are considering such tools as immunization passports and body temperature scanning (already in use by some airports) that would be applicable to everyone on every flight, much like our security screening is today. In addition, virtual meeting technology—adoption of which is expanding quickly out of necessity—is now becoming business as usual for work and socializing, and it's unlikely we will turn away from it entirely even when the disease is a memory. These combined influences will undoubtedly slow passenger traffic growth. COVID-19 also will change the industry's labor landscape. For the past several years, the aviation industry has been concerned with a looming labor shortage. Before the coronavirus crisis, regional airlines were already being forced to shut down because they couldn't find enough pilots; others were trimming flight schedules. A stunning 90% of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association's 2019 survey reported difficulty finding enough technicians—a situation that cost ARSA members more than $100 million per month in unrealized revenue. COVID-19 will change all that. With the global fleet expected to have 1,200 fewer airplanes flying in 2021 than 2019, the industry will need roughly 18,000 fewer pilots and 8,400 fewer aviation maintenance technicians in 2021. The depth of the cutbacks is the equivalent of grounding 1-2 years' worth of graduates from training and certification programs around the world. How many would-be pilots and mechanics may now be dissuaded from pursuing a career in aviation with those statistics? If people turn away now, when aviation comes back it may be a few years before that candidate pipeline is restored. Another example of permanent change from aviation's last cataclysmic event was the consolidation of the OEM supply chain after the Great Recession. Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers went on a buying spree, gobbling up smaller companies. While the post-COVID-19 business environment will undoubtedly be hazardous for these same suppliers, the consolidation of the past decade has put them in a better position to survive this upheaval. Can the same be said for the MRO community, which comprises many smaller, privately held and family-owned companies? I suspect not. While governments are scrambling to provide financial relief for small businesses hurt by the global economic shutdown, these efforts will likely fall short. The result might well be a further consolidated MRO community dominated by the OEMs plus a handful of fully integrated firms that provide support to both OEMs and airlines. COVID-19 is a painful reminder that aviation always will be a cyclical business. With each cycle, the industry renews itself, performing better than before. One should expect this cycle to be no different. The biggest question is: How long will this cycle last? —David Marcontell, Oliver Wyman partner and general manager of its Cavok division, has aftermarket experience with leading OEMs, airlines, MROs and financial services.

All news