British Army Soldiers with the 77th Brigade, 6th United Kingdom Division use information warfare during Dragoon Ready 20 at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center, Hohenfels, Germany, Nov. 4, 2019.
HOHENFELS, GERMANY
11.04.2019
Video by Spc. Ethan Valetski and Pfc. Michael Ybarra
2d Cavalry Regimen
Debalina Ghoshal
Cyber theft committed by China is not new and the country continues to violate commitment that it had made with the United States that it would not indulge in any cyber thefts.
These thefts not only include intellectual properties but also crucial weapon systems to name a few thus becoming a threat to the United States. in 2009, when the US oil companies like Marathon Oil and Exxon Mobil were victims of cyber espionage, it was assumed that the possible culprit could have been China or Russia.
As late as the June 2018 reports, China continues to steal intellectual property and trade secrets from the United States companies for its own economic development. China in the past has made attempts to hack information on US nuclear warheads.
Most recently, in June 2018, it has been reported that China has gained access to secret information of US project ‘Sea Dragon’ that would provide them crucial information on US submarines and anti-ship missiles- crucial for deterrence and developing counter-measures especially as China and the United States are involved in the South China Sea confrontation.
According to reports, China stole 614 gigabytes worth information relating to sensors, submarine cryptographic systems along with information on Sea Dragon project. In February 2019, there were reports that Iran and China have renewed their cyber-attacks against the United States.
The US also accuses China of attempting to steal crucial information on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (a reason why it is believed China was able to develop the indigenous Chengdu J-20) as well as the Patriot air and missile defence systems.
Other than this, the United States also accuses China of infiltrating an organisation with connections the THAAD missile defence system in South Korea- a move by the United States that China vehemently opposes. Such cyber thefts would enable China to develop counter measures against these weapon systems by studying the weapon systems of the United States in detail.
They are also accused of obtaining designs for several other weapon systems like Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System, Littoral Combat Ship and also electromagnetic rail guns.
China’s medium of cyber theft includes- stealing secrets including computer software source codes, chemical formulas, and technology can be used in weapon systems. Other than this, technological \know-how is gained by joint ventures and purchases of companies, academic and research partnerships and front companies that “obscure the hand of Chinese government.”
As regards China’s hacking of crucial weapons systems, according to Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments.
Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013, “China utilised its intelligence services and employed other illicit approaches that involve violations of U.S. laws and exports to obtain key national security technologies, controlled equipment and other materials not readily obtainable through commercial means or academia.” The same year, the Obama Administration had also confrontedPresident Jinping on the issue of cyber espionage conducted by China. In 2014, some People’s Liberation of Army (PLA) officials were accused of stealing trade secrets from Westinghouse, U.S. steel and other companies.
Despite the hue and cry of the United States, China continues to violate the 2015 bilateral accord with the United States and such cyber thefts have been reported even in November 2018. The bilateral agreement was signed by China after coercion by the United States in which Beijing agreed to not to steal each other’s intellectual property for commercial gain. The bilateral agreement of 2015 between the United States and China became a much needed arrangement especially as in 2013, the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property estimated that 50-80 percent of the cyber thefts were performed by China.
Not only the United States, but China inked similar bilateral deals with Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. However, owing to the recent trade war between the United States and China, China has resumed hacking of US confidential information and this level of hacking has only become more sophisticated and stealthier.
According to US senior adviser for cyber security strategy at the National Security Agency (NSA), Rob Joyce, “it is clear they were well beyond the bounds of the agreement today” that was forged between the two countries.
Though Chinese have denied this allegation, private sector cyber security firms have confirmed that China’s cyber theft activities have increased over the years especially since the Trump administration came into power and since China and the United States have been mired into trade war.
This increase in cyber thefts occurred despite Chinese President Xi Jinping’s positive view of the bilateral agreement and in 2015 he stated, “China and the United States are two major cyber countries, and we should strengthen dialogue and cooperation. Confrontation and friction are not the right choice for both sides.”
One of the reasons why China is so capable of tactfully performing cyber espionage is due to the government’s effort in concentrating on development of science and technology, and research and development.
This is no surprise as China’s assassin mace weapon strategy whereby it aims to defeat greater powers with both offensive and defensive technologies.
Cyber operations form a major component of China’s assassin mace weapon strategy to strengthen its deterrence vis-à-vis the United States.
Like always, China continues to deny these allegations of cyber espionage. According to Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Lu Kang, the accusations are “purely out of ulterior motive that some companies and individuals in the United States use so-called cyber theft to blame China for no reason.”
The United States on the other hand, has come out with a new cyber security strategy in 2018 that would include the strategy of strengthening the organisations that include‘ critical infrastructure.’
Imposing sanctions on Chinese hackers and hacking agencies is another way that the United States is making an effort to deter China.
Not only this, its strategy also includes ‘naming and shaming’ those cyber attackers as well as the countries supporting such activities.
Organisations like the Department of Defence and NSA can counter attack overseas sources of attacks with greater ease now according to the strategy.
The military division has also started with Twitter account that discloses the malwares they have discovered in order to deter hackers from hacking critical information.
Despite the cyber security strategy that the United States has adopted, there is little doubt that the US is vulnerable constantly to Chinese cyber-attacks and espionage. Its weapon systems and intellectual property are under constant threat jeopardising its security.
Debalina Ghoshal is a Non Resident Fellow, Council on International Policy, Canada and an Asia Pacific Fellow, EastWest Institute
The featured image comes from the following source:
By defenceWeb
The South African defence industry is cultivating closer ties with the Egyptian market, with the South African Aerospace, Maritime, and Defence Export Council (SAAMDEC) holding discussions with Egypt’s Minister of State for Military Production.
Dr Mohamed Said Al-Assar met with members from the South African Aerospace, Maritime and Defence (AMD) Industries Association on Saturday along with representatives from a number of South African companies to discuss defence cooperation.
The Egyptian Ministry of Military Production outlined its role and requirements, particularly regarding ammunition, weapons and equipment. According to Egyptian media, the two sides discusses aspects of cooperation and willingness to enhance this.
AMD representatives highlighted the fact that South African companies are willing to work with Egyptian companies and praised the Egyptian side for encouraging foreign companies to invest in Egyptian projects.
South African interest could be seen in the participation by South African companies in the first EDEX defence exhibition in Cairo in December 2018, with AMD encouraging other companies to take part in the next edition in 2020.
“The two sides agreed to form working groups to study the tracks that will be agreed upon to develop future partnership and cooperation,” Egyptian media reported.
SAAMDEC CEO Sandile Ndlovu, speaking at the end of the weeklong outward trade and investment mission in Egypt, said the North African country is a big market for the South African defence industry as it spends over $4 billion on arms a year.
He said the first step to entering the Egyptian defence market is to formally introduce the South African defence industry to the market and acknowledge the efforts of individual companies that have been interacting already. Secondly, areas of cooperation in the defence space need to be identified.
“Our first interactions with the Egyptian private sector occurred during a defence exhibition that was held in Egypt last year [EDEX 2018]. We interacted again this time around and have found that there is a lot of interest to cooperate with us, specifically on the promotion and marketing of our products in the private sector.
“What we have agreed on doing between ourselves and the Egyptian defence authorities is to streamline discussions by identifying specific areas where we could cooperate.
“In the meantime, because Egypt has such a huge buying capacity, they have also made an undertaking that they would forward more inquiries of their requirements to South Africa.
“Over and above the co-producing and co-developing, we will begin to assist the Egyptians with their defence requirements in areas where South Africa has solutions,” said Ndlovu.
South African companies that have already participated in the Egyptian defence market include Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM), which commissioned a Universal Filling Plant for Egypt in 2017.
This has the capability to fill a variety of munition products, including medium and large calibre ammunition through to aircraft bombs. It was established over a four year period.
Denel Dynamics, meanwhile, is looking to sell Egypt up to 96 Umkhonto-R surface-to-air missiles in a potential R4.5 billion deal. These would equip the Egyptian Navy’s new ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) Meko A200 frigates. Denel is also hoping to sell 32 infrared-guided versions of its Umkhonto missile to Egypt, according to a Mail & Guardian report.
In early September, in presentation to Parliament, Denel said its “largest export contract” was “imminent” with an advance payment of R1.5 billion. The presentation said the contract would boost Denel’s production portfolio and cover equipment fit for TKMS vessels for the Egyptian Navy.
Elsewhere, South African engineers from SAKSA Technologies developed the ST-100 and ST-500 armoured personnel carriers (APCs) for Egypt’s International Marathon United Technology Group (IMUT), which were unveiled in 2018 and are in production for the Egyptian military.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, South Africa supplied 14 Mamba APCs to Egypt in 2014.
This article was published by defenceWeb on December 9, 2019.
The featured photo shows an Egyptian Crotale missile. This weapon was originally developed in South Africa.
U.S. Marines with 2nd Transportation Support Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 2, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, work with Sailors from Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) 69 and 53, assigned to Assault Craft Unit 4, to load equipment on to the LCAC during Type Commander’s Amphibious Training (TCAT) 20-1 at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Oct. 25, 2019.
The purpose of TCAT is to increase naval integration and preparation for real-world contingency operations.
CAMP LEJEUNE, NC, UNITED STATES
10.25.2019
Video by Lance Cpl. Fatima Villatoro
2nd Marine Logistics Group
It’s clear that combat capabilities and operations are being recrafted across the globe and, as operational contexts change, the evolution of the role of fighters is at the center of that shift.
The 2018 International Fighter Conference held in Berlin provided a chance to focus on the role of fighters in the strategic shift from land wars to higher intensity operations.
The baseline assumption for the conference can be simply put: air superiority can no longer be assumed, and needs to be created in contested environments.
Competitors like China and Russia are putting significant effort into shaping concepts of operations and modernizing force structures which will allow them to challenge the ability of liberal democracies to establish air superiority and to dominate future crises.
There was a clear consensus on this point, but, of course, working the specifics of defeating such an adversary brings in broader concepts of force design and operations.
While the air forces of liberal democracies all face the common threat of operating in contested airspace, the preferred solutions vary greatly from one nation to another, so the conference worked from that common assumption rather than focusing on specific solutions.
Among some of the key questions addressed during IFC 2018 were the foillowing:
Where is sensor fusion done?
Where will decisions be taken?
Who will deliver them?
How will different air forces connect in distributed operations in contested airspace?
With what systems and means?
As multi-domain operations (the ability to deliver effects throughout the entire combat force with fighters playing various roles, C2, ISR, strike) come to dominate, will platforms be designed to enhance overall capabilities of the combat force?
Put another way, how will legacy aircraft evolve to the challenge of dealing with contested airspace while also contributing to multi-domain operations that is becoming a primary driver of change for the air combat force?
International Fighter Conference 2019 picked up from the discussion last year, to focus notably on the second and third questions: how will fighters evolve within the air combat force to deliver multi-domain effects in a contested environment?
The conference focused on the role of fighters within the evolution of networked lethality.
The key point is that fighters are not what they once were.
They are now key players in multi-mission and multi-domain operations.
Some of the themes which clearly emerged from the conference, include but are not limited to the following:
What progress has the Future Combat Air System program of the French, Germans and, now the Spanish made in the past year?
How the manned-unmanned teaming part of FCAS could enter the market in the next decade?
How convergent are the projected French Rafale and the German Eurofighter modernization programs? Is it more a case of parallel efforts or cross cutting ones?
How has the coming of the F-35 affected rethinking about air combat operations? How to better connect fifth generation concepts and thinking with the overall dynamics of change in what I call the shaping of an integrated distributed force?
How are countries directly threatened by the 21st century authoritarian powers addressing the role of air power in their self-defense?
How best to train a multi-domain fighter pilot?
How does the telescoping of generations of fighter aircraft shape the “next” generation fighter?
How to best address the challenge of affordable capability, remembering Secretary Wynne’s core point: You don’t win anything being the second-best air force?
Is the combat cloud the best way to think about the new C2/ISR infrastructure which is being crafted, created and shaped for the advanced air forces?
In short, the fighter conference is a place to be for those who are thinking about the evolution of the multi-domain combat environment and how best to prepare those flying fighters to prevail in that environment.
For the International Fighter Conference 2018, see the following:
International-Fighter-Conference-2018For the International Fighter Conference 2019, see the following:
By defenceWeb
Sales of arms and military services by the sector’s largest 100 companies (excluding those in China) were up by 4.6% in 2018 compared to the previous year, totalling $420 billion, according to a new report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The new data from SIPRI’s Arms Industry Database shows that sales of arms and military services by companies listed in the Top 100 have increased by 47 per cent since 2002 (the year from which comparable data is first available). The database excludes Chinese companies due to the lack of data to make a reliable estimate, SIPRI said on Monday.
For the first time since 2002, the top five spots in the ranking are held exclusively by arms companies based in the United States: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. These five companies alone accounted for $148 billion and 35% of total Top 100 arms sales in 2018. Total arms sales of US companies in the ranking amounted to $246 billion, equivalent to 59% of all arms sales by the Top 100. This is an increase of 7.2% compared with 2017, according to SIPRI data.
A key development in the US arms industry in 2018 was the growing trend in consolidations among some of the largest arms producers. For example, two of the top five, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, made multibillion-dollar acquisitions in 2018.
“US companies are preparing for the new arms modernization programme that was announced in 2017 by President Trump,” said Aude Fleurant, Director of SIPRI’s Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. “Large US companies are merging to be able to produce the new generation of weapon systems and therefore be in a better position to win contracts from the US Government.”
The combined arms sales of the ten Russian companies in the 2018 ranking were $36.2 billion—a marginal decrease of 0.4% on 2017. Their share of total Top 100 arms sales fell from 9.7% in 2017 to 8.6% in 2018. This can be explained by the higher Top 100 total in 2018 due to the substantial growth in the combined arms sales of US and European companies.
Among the 10 Russian companies listed in the Top 100, the trends are mixed: five companies recorded an increase in arms sales, while the other five showed a decrease. Russia’s largest arms producer, Almaz-Antey, was the only Russian company ranked in the top 10 (at 9th position) and accounted for 27% of the total arms sales of Russian companies in the Top 100. Almaz-Antey’s arms sales rose by 18% in 2018, to $9.6 billion.
The combined arms sales of the 27 European companies in the Top 100 increased marginally in 2018, to $102 billion. Arms sales by companies based in the UK fell by 4.8%, to $35.1 billion, but remained the highest in Europe. BAE Systems (ranked 6th) is the world’s largest arms producer outside of the USA. Its arms sales dropped by 5.2% in 2018, to $21.2 billion.
The combined arms sales of French companies in the Top 100 were the second highest in Europe, at $23.2 billion. “The overall growth in arms sales of the six French companies in the SIPRI Top 100 was mainly the result of a 30% increase in sales by combat aircraft producer Dassault Aviation,” said Diego Lopes da Silva, Researcher for SIPRI’s Arms and Military Expenditure Programme.
The total combined sales of the four German arms-producing companies in the ranking fell by 3.8%. “An increase in deliveries of military vehicles by Rheinmetall, the largest arms company based in Germany, were offset by a drop in sales by shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp,” said Pieter D. Wezeman, Senior Researcher with SIPRI’s Arms and Military Expenditure Programme.
Eighty of the 100 top arms producers in 2018 were based in the USA, Europe and Russia. Of the remaining 20, six were based in Japan, three in Israel, India and South Korea, respectively, two in Turkey and one each in Australia, Canada and Singapore.
The combined arms sales of the six Japanese companies remained relatively stable in 2018. At $9.9 billion, they accounted for 2.4% of the Top 100 total.
The three Israeli companies’ arms sales of $8.7 billion accounted for 2.1% of the Top 100 total. Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries and Rafael all increased their arms sales in 2018.
The combined arms sales of the three Indian arms companies listed in the Top 100 were $5.9 billion in 2018—a decrease of 6.9% on 2017. The decline is mainly a result of Indian Ordnance Factory’s significant 27% drop in arms sales.
The three companies based in South Korea had combined arms sales of $5.2 billion in 2018, equivalent to 1.2% of the Top 100 total. Their collective arms sales in 2018 were 9.9% higher than in 2017. Bucking the trend, however, was LIG Nex1, whose sales fell by 17% in 2018. The shipbuilder DSME, which was ranked in 2017, dropped out of the Top 100 in 2018.
Arms sales by Turkish companies listed in the Top 100 increased by 22% in 2018, to $2.8 billion. Turkey aims to develop and modernize its arms industry and Turkish companies continued to benefit from these efforts in 2018.
This article was published by defenceWeb on December 9, 2019.
The featured photo shows Ex-US RG33s heading to Egypt.
In the United States, we have tweeting Trump and the impeaching House of Representatives; in Europe they have Macronite.
We have had and continue to have a significant deluge of comments on President Trump and his approach to foreign policy with little that has a positive tinge to it; but what about Macronite?
How positive or significant is this for shaping the second creation of the West?
The first creation was lead by the United States after World War II with the laying down of the rules based order; the Post-Cold War period was more or less acting on the belief that the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed those rules of the game to be extended East.
But in fact, little noticed was the rise of 21st century authoritarian capitalist powers who were key anchors of globalization and have woven themselves into the fabric of the liberal democratic societies.
With the 21st century authoritarian powers working to write the rules of the game going forward rather than reinforcing the rules based order, what should and can the Western liberal democracies do?
In his recent interview with The Economist,the President of the Republic provided his answer and having done so, he deserves a serious examination of whether or not that resets the effort in a manner that can lead the way ahead.
He certainly has provided a wide-ranging analysis of the current situation; but does the Macronite approach going forward provide a realistic way ahead to deal with the current crises?
For a report looking at the Macron in interview and some of the issues raised by the President in his wide-ranging interview, see the following:
President MacronFor an e-book version of the report, see the following:
Two autonomous Australian Army M113 AS4 armoured vehicles conducted fire and manoeuvre training demonstrations alongside crewed vehicles, UAS and ground robots to Department of Defence senior leadership at the Majura Training Area, ACT, on Thursday 31 October 2019.
The demonstration showcased the potential for robotic and autonomous systems to enhance Army’s capabilities on operations.
Australian Department of Defence
November 1, 2019