5 takeaways: Top US Navy officer releases updated strategy document

On the same subject

• 

  December 3, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  UK Conservatives propose far-reaching defense review if elected

  By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — The British government will conduct an extensive review integrating defense, security and foreign policy if the Conservative Party wins the upcoming general election, Prime Minister Boris Johnson says. The Conservatives are offering what appears to be a fundamental review of Britain's armed forces, with Johnson saying the initiative will lead to a “huge technological upgrade of security forces to keep Britain safe and strengthen NATO.” The review is scheduled to get underway next year and be led by the Prime Minister's office, said Johnson. Johnson's promise of a strategy shift in policy comes as London prepares to host NATO's 70th anniversary summit on Dec. 4, dubbed by alliance officials as a “leaders' meeting.” National media here reported Johnson as saying it would be the “deepest review of Britain's defense, security and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. “It will extend from the armed forces to the intelligence services, counter-terrorism forces and serious organized crime. It will also consider Britain's foreign policy, how we can best use our huge expenditure on international development, and the role of technology,” he said. “We must use money better, undertake a huge technological upgrade of all our security forces so they are ahead of hostile powers, terrorists and organized crime — and unlike previous exercises, we must develop an integrated plan for all forces engaged in security,” he is reported as saying. Investment in space capabilities for the Royal Air Force appears to one of the big items on Johnsons agenda according to the reports. Creating a space command was one of just a small handful of defense policy initiatives announced in the Conservative manifesto released just over a week ago. Britain has held two full strategic defense and security reviews and a mini review, known as the defence modernization program, since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. The precedent now is to hold a review every five years. The last review, in 2015, restored capabilities like equipping the Royal Air Force with maritime patrol aircraft but failed to fund the uptick in equipment programs adequately. A review was expected next year whoever wins the election. The rival Labour Party has promised the same in their election manifesto. John Louth, the director of the defense, industry and society program at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London, said Johnson's proposed review appears to lay the ground for a far more radical rethink than previous strategic defense and security proposals. “He's talking about a once-in-a-generation review with everything on the table. Ideas on re-rolling the RAF more toward space, that sounds like something quite profound. Whether that becomes a reality – who knows, but for the moment everything could be in the mix. From what we know they are almost talking about a zero-based budgeting exercise with everything up for grabs,” said Louth. “Whether it is political rhetoric which will be quickly forgotten is difficult to say, but what will be interesting is to see who is actually undertaking the review and what are their terms of reference,” he said. The RUSI analyst reckons a comprehensive review will need to take the long view. “What does technology look like over the next 15-20 years, how do we fund and how do we access those technologies? Also, if we are going to be potentially short of thousands of personnel, how might initiatives like sponsored reserves help fill the gap?” said Louth. Johnson's review announcement comes against a background of rising tensions in the Ministry of Defence where service chiefs are already said to be fighting amongst themselves over future funding levels for the military. One government relations consultant, who asked not to be named, said there was nothing unusual about infighting among the services for funds but the backstabbing was fiercer and earlier in the budget cycle than usual. Louth said what was challenging now is the “funding doesn't allow everything on the shopping list, and the personnel numbers in the armed forces don't allow them to man the equipment they are already committed to, so something will have to give.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-2020-defined/2019/12/02/uk-conservatives-propose-far-reaching-defense-review-if-elected/

• 

  October 29, 2019 | International, Naval

  After a leadership shakeup at General Dynamics, a murky future for submarine building

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — Submarine building, the pride of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding efforts over the past decade, is facing a mountain of uncertainty, a point underscored by the replacement of senior members of General Dynamics leadership, compounding delays with construction of the Virginia-class submarine and nagging questions about the quality of the work after a high-profile welding issue threatened to trip up the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub program at the starting line. Adding to the uncertainty for General Dynamics, which operates the Electric Boat shipyard in Connecticut, are indications that profits from constructing Virginia-class subs may be slipping. And challenges in training new workers in the complex world of building subs as well as concerns that the Columbia program might negatively affect General Dynamics' bottom line are impacting General Dynamics' partner yard Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia, as well as the U.S. Navy. Furthermore, a contract for the significantly larger Block V Virginia-class submarine, expected to be one of the largest in the Navy's history, has been repeatedly delayed amid disputes over labor rates, sources told Defense News. That contract is more than a year past due, according to Navy budget documents. In September, General Dynamics pushed out Electric Boat President Jeffrey Geiger. Industry and Navy sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Geiger's replacement was the culmination of mounting frustration on the part of the Navy. That came to a head when quality control issues surfaced with missile tubes in production destined for the Virginia Payload Module, Columbia-class subs and the United Kingdom's replacement ballistic missile sub. Geiger's ouster came on the heals of General Dynamics replacing long-time executive John Casey as head of the Marine Systems division when he retired earlier this year. The shakeup, delays and lingering issues put the Navy and the submarine-building enterprise at a crossroads. It's clear that the Navy's efforts to ramp up production of its Virginia-class attack boats ahead of Columbia have encountered myriad issues and delays. But while delays may be acceptable for the Virginia program, the interconnected nature of submarine building means those delays could eek into a program that the Navy has for years insisted cannot be delayed any further: the replacement of its aging Ohio-class ballistic missile subs, part of the nuclear deterrent triad. The Navy has said Columbia must be ready for its first patrol in 2031 to ensure the nation doesn't fall below a dangerous threshold where retiring Ohio-class submarines leaving the country without an adequate number of boats to execute its deterrent strategy. But to head that off, the Navy may have reduce its expectations of the industrial base's capacity to build submarines, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank and a retired submarine officer. “The Navy is going to have to reduce its appetite for submarine capacity while it gets the construction process in a better position,” he said. “All of the things we have seen in the past year in the submarine-building enterprise are the results of the ramped-up production levels and the challenges that EB [Electric Boat] faces in hiring more workers up in Connecticut. “They've been growing capacity, investing in infrastructure; they're trying to hire a bunch of workers and design engineers. [But] there just isn't a large workforce of those kinds of people up there as opposed to in Hampton Roads or the Gulf Coast. So there are a lot of challenges in ramping up production to [increase] Virginia-class production and, in addition, starting Columbia and beginning the Virginia Payload Module-equipped Virginias, which is a 30 percent larger submarine.” A bridge to Columbia In March, Defense News reported that all the Virginia-class submarines under construction were between four and seven months behind schedule. Naval Sea Systems Command pointed to the cumulative effect of ramping up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year. In a statement, the service's top acquisition official said the Navy was continuing to confront material, labor and shipyard infrastructure issues. Labor issues in particular hit the Newport News yard, which told investors in a recent earnings call that profits had slipped by about 23 percent on the Virginia sub building because of delays associated with labor issues. In the face of the mounting issues, the Navy should be willing to make difficult choices to get back on an even footing, Clark said. “Are we going to make some tough choices and dial back submarine construction deliberately to make sure we can get Columbia started correctly?” he asked. “And that means maybe we slow down Virginia, maybe we go to one per year for at least a couple of years to catch up.” Clark said the Navy should continue to fund two submarines per year but should expect that they will take longer to build while General Dynamics and Newport News stabilize their labor and parts issues. Paring back submarine production is a tough pill to swallow for the Navy, as it's been fighting for years to prevent a shortfall of attack submarines in the coming decade. The Navy expects its inventory of attack boats to drop from 52 to 42 by the late 2020s as Cold War-era Los Angeles-class attack subs retire. Furthermore, there's the question of whether scaling back production might invite a funding cut, which could make matters worse. The supplier and labor issues, after all, primarily stem from the 1990s when the Navy all but stopped buying submarines, which resulted in a contraction of the number of businesses that built submarine parts and a loss in skilled laborers who knew how to build them. Less funding would likely have a detrimental effect on sub-building efforts, said Bill Greenwalt, a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer. “Under our current budget and appropriations process, slowing down — which likely implies cutting program funding — would exacerbate industrial base problems as it already has in the past due to lack of program demand,” Greenwalt said. “Congress and the Navy need to be prepared for industrial base surprises and seriously face the past problem of the underfunding of naval shipbuilding.” “A flexible schedule and more realistic and flexible funding mechanisms will be needed to meet whatever industrial base challenges ... will inevitably arise,” he added. “In the near term we may even need to look at some of our allies' capabilities to meet shortfalls and help us keep on schedule until we rebuild U.S. capacity.” Greenwalt's view tracks with that of General Dynamics, according to a source with knowledge of the company's thinking on the difficulties it has faced. The company considers ramping up production on the Virginia-class sub as essential to building a sufficient labor force and supplier capacity so the resources are available to build Columbia class on schedule, the source said. ‘Two-hump camel' The Navy's top acquisition official, James Geurts, has similarly described the issue. On the possibility of building a third Virginia-class submarine in 2023, Geurts told the House Armed Services Committee's sea power panel in March that it would benefit the Columbia-building effort. “We can get some of the additional workforce trained up, get some more of the supplier base and get some of the supplier builds out of the way before Columbia gets here,” he said. Officials everywhere seem to agree that the labor force is the most critical factor when it comes to getting submarine building on track. In an exit interview with Defense News in August, outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said turnover at shipyards was a challenge but also an exciting chance to build a new generation of skilled labor. “We're asking a lot of the submarine industrial base right now to continue with Virginia, two to three per year including that payload module, and deliver Columbia,” Richardson said. “And the workforce is going through a transformation. “The people who built and delivered the Virginia program, the Los Angeles program and Seawolf — those folks are retiring. We used to have this two-hump camel in terms of the demographics of the shipyard: You had the Cold Warriors and you had the post-9/11 folks. And that Cold War hump is gone. And I think that although it's going through some friction right now, it's really inculcating, indoctrinating and educating a brand-new workforce.” Richardson also sounded a note of warning about work quality, saying that the managers overseeing the work for the submarine-building enterprise must be on top of their jobs. “We've had some welding issues: We've got to be on that,” he said. “[It's] a lot closer oversight as we educate this new team.” Clarification: The story has been updated to better reflect the arguments surrounding the future of submarine building. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/28/after-a-leadership-shakeup-at-general-dynamics-a-murky-future-for-submarine-building/

• 

  August 18, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Will U.S. Defense Cuts Delay Next-Gen Combat Aircraft Programs?

  August 17, 2020 Many nations have suffered significant financial losses as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Will next-generation combat aircraft programs be delayed by future defense budgets cuts? Aviation Week's Executive Editor for Defense and Space, Jen DiMascio, answers: Even though defense budgets are likely to remain stable in the U.S. during the coming year, relief funding to combat the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to put pressure on spending over time. As a result, projects such as the U.S. Air Force's Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program could be slowed. Pentagon spending was already predicted to level off in the next few years, and the economic drop-off caused by the novel coronavirus and the torrent of debt the government is taking on to combat the pandemic adds even more pressure. The situation today is even more extreme than during the 2008-09 global economic crisis, according to Craig Caffrey, senior aerospace industry analyst for forecast and MRO at the Aviation Week Network. Caffrey forecasts that COVID-19 could shrink the global economy by 4-6% over the next five years, sending worldwide defense spending down 5%, or $70-80 billion. What all that means for next-generation fighter programs is difficult to say. The U.S. is already sacrificing NGAD funding for near-term needs. A bill to provide $700 billion for defense in fiscal 2021 in the House of Representatives would approximately halve funding for NGAD by $500 million for fiscal 2021 to offset an Air Force shortfall in fighter availability. Could such cutbacks slow development of next-generation efforts? It is hard to say, but constraints on spending are unlikely to ease. In Europe, the UK is aiming to field its next-generation Tempest in 2035. So far, £2 billion ($2.6 billion) has been allocated for technology development and maturation, but Caffrey foresees strong economic headwinds over the next five years. “I don't see where the money comes from for the full scope of Tempest as currently envisaged,” he says. The French-German Future Air Combat System (FCAS) may have more breathing room because the program is not expected to enter service until 2040. In the near-term, France, Germany and their new partner, Spain, are providing government aid to such high-tech programs to retain jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The real test will be whether funding can be sustained in 2022-23. Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury is lobbying for efforts such as EuroDrone and FCAS to continue, saying they will be required in the future. “We have the DNA to make them successful,” Faury told Aviation Week's Jens Flottau recently. “Europe feels the need to prepare for the sovereignty of the future, which includes the air and space power to protect your territory from the skies. I am very happy and optimistic that this is moving forward.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/will-us-defense-cuts-delay-next-gen-combat-aircraft-programs