June 18, 2020 | International, Land
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on June 17, 2020 at 2:43 PM
WASHINGTON: “This is a healthy competition,” the head of the Army Stryker program, Col. Bill Venable, reassured reporters. “My No. 1 mandate as the overall program manager was to protect the competition in this first phase.”
Venable was allaying anxieties yesterday about the five-year-old effort to upgun the infantry transport version of the Stryker, an 8×8 armored vehicle that's become an Army workhorse worldwide since its controversial introduction in 2003. The wheeled Stryker was criticized for having lighter armor than the tracked M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley, although it's far better protected than Humvees. It often struggled over Afghan terrain. But its ability to move rapidly by road – with fewer stops for gas and maintenance than heavy armored vehicles – made it a favorite of US commanders from Iraq to Estonia.
So, while overshadowed by high-tech prototypes from hypersonic missiles to high-speed helicopters to robotic tanks, the Army is doubling down on the proven Stryker in several ways:
General Dynamics urgently built 83 upgunned Strykers to reequip a single Europe-based brigade. Now the Army is holding an open competition for an official Program of Record (POR) to upgrade at least three more brigades with a more refined 30mm turret design – but we've heard some anxiety over whether any other vendor can really unseat the incumbent.
Out of six companies awarded $150,000 design contracts last summer, Venable confirmed that at least two have dropped out. At the current — sensitive — stage of the competition, the program manager said after a quick consultation with his staff, he isn't allowed to disclose how many companies remain and how many have quit.
But Venable did tell reporters that one vendor dropped out because it wasn't making adequate progress to meet the technical requirements, while another decided it didn't have a good enough chance of winning to justify the investment. While the Army gave competitors free Strykers and 30mm guns, they must provide their own turrets, electronics and other components to integrate the weapon and the vehicle into a functional fighting system, to be delivered to the Army for testing by August 10.
“We're not funding their development,” Venable said, “[which is] in some cases millions of dollars they're going to invest.” While he won't second-guess any company's cost-benefit calculus, he's been working with all of them to try to keep them in the running, despite disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. “We have adjusted the evaluation strategy in order to maintain the competition as robust as we can,” he said.
“This isn't the first competitive selection effort that I've run, and I will say we have more [viable competitors] than the incumbent, significantly more than the incumbent,” Venable told reporters. “We're going to present a variety of choices to the source selection authority to evaluate starting on 10 August.”
Once the vehicles arrive in August, the Army will live-fire the 30 mm guns, check out the armor, and conduct a host of other tests. By January, Venable expects to have that data ready for the evaluation board, which aims to announce a winner by the end of April, 2021.
After that, the winning company will start mass production, with the first vehicles scheduled for delivery to a Stryker unit in August or September 2022. That meets the Army's previously announced deadline to start fielding by the end of fiscal '22, Venable said. But the brigade will spend months more taking possession of the vehicles and training on them – a “Rubik's Cube” of logistics and scheduling, Venable said — before it's officially declared the “First Unit Equipped,” probably around March 2023.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/army-rebuffs-anxiety-over-stryker-cannon-competition
August 25, 2024 | International, Aerospace
Opinion: Our guest opinion writer argues that AI must be prioritized across military programs and platforms, or else America risks losing the AI race to China.
March 20, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
By Jon Harper The president's fiscal year 2020 budget request for the Defense Department would reduce procurement of existing systems while increasing research-and-development spending as the Pentagon pursues new technology to take on advanced adversaries. The Trump administration is asking for $718 billion for the Pentagon, including a whopping $164 billion in overseas contingency operations funding, also known as OCO, and $9.2 in “emergency spending” for border wall construction and post-hurricane reconstruction efforts, according to budget documents released March 12. The documents note that $98 billion of the OCO funding is for base budget needs. Putting base money in OCO accounts, which aren't subject to 2011 Budget Control Act caps, is a long standing gimmick that the executive branch and Congress have used in recent years to get around military spending limits. The proposed topline would be see a $33 billion boost relative to what was enacted in fiscal year 2019, a gain of 4.9 percent in nominal terms and 2.8 percent real growth when accounting for inflation. The Army would see the largest budget increase of $12.5 billion. The Air Force and Department of the Navy — which includes the Marine Corps — would see gains of $11.8 billion and $9.9 billion, respectively. Defense-wide accounts would decrease by $930 million. The administration is asking for a total of $750 billion in defense spending, which includes nuclear weapons programs and various projects carried out by the Department of Energy and other agencies. That is $34 billion, nearly five percent, more than was enacted in 2019. Officials said the 2020 budget request reflects a renewed focus on great power competition with adversaries such as Russia and China. “The national defense strategy has made it very clear that to preserve the peace, we must be prepared for the high-end fight against peer competitors,” David Norquist, the Pentagon's acting deputy secretary of defense, told reporters during a briefing at the Pentagon. “Future wars will be waged not just in the air, on the land or at sea, but also in space and cyberspace, dramatically increasing the complexity of warfare. This budget reflects that challenge.” It includes the largest research, development, test and evaluation funding request in 70 years, Norquist noted. “We have increased ... RDT&E and we have decreased procurement to reflect our focus on modernization,” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Elaine McCusker said. Under the budget blueprint, RDT&E funding would grow by more than $9 billion to $104.3 billion, nearly a 10 percent boost relative to 2019, according to budget documents. That includes $12.4 billion for the Army, $46.1 billion for the Air Force, $20.4 billion for the Department of the Navy and $25.4 billion for defense-wide projects. Spending on emerging technologies highlighted in the budget documents include: $3.7 billion for “unmanned/autonomous projects to enhance freedom of maneuver and lethality in contested environments;” $927 million in artificial intelligence/machine learning investments for initiatives like the new Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and advanced image recognition; $2.6 billion for hypersonic weapons development; and $235 million for directed energy capabilities to support implementation of directed energy for base defense, enable testing and procurement of multiple types of lasers, and increase R&D for high-power density applications. Meanwhile, total procurement across the department would decrease by $4.2 billion, or about three percent relative to 2019, to $143.1 billion. The decrease is largely driven by reductions in procurement quantities for the F-35 joint strike fighter, C-130 cargo aircraft, AH-64 Apache helicopter and KC-46 tanker, according to budget documents. The Army would see a $1.3 billion cut in procurement, while the Army and Department of the Navy procurement accounts would essentially stay flat with only $66 million and $64 million growth, respectively. Defense-wide programs would face a $3.1 billion decrease. Cyber capabilities would see $9.6 billion in spending across the department to support offensive and defensive cyber operations, cybersecurity technology and cloud computing initiatives. That is an increase of about 10 percent over 2019, according to Army Lt. Gen. Anthony Ierardi, director of force structure, resources and assessment on the Joint Staff. For procurement and RDT&E, space systems — including launch, satellites and support — would receive $11.9 billion, a $2.6 billion jump. About $72 million would resource the initial establishment of a new United States Space Force that President Donald Trump is calling for, according to budget documents. Total spending on the space enterprise would total $14.1 billion, a 15 percent increase relative to 2019, Ierardi said. Aircraft programs would receive $57.7 billion, a $2.5 billion increase compared to 2019. That would including 78 F-35s, which are being acquired by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — a decrease of 15 joint strike fighters compared to the number procured last year. The budget also includes $1.1 billion for eight F-15EX fighters, a souped-up version of legacy F-15 platforms. Ground systems would receive $14.6 billion, about $1.3 billion less than 2019. That includes $1.6 billion for more than 4,000 joint light tactical vehicle that the Army and Marine Corps are buying. Shipbuilding and maritime systems would receive $34.7 billion, a $1.6 billon bump. Missiles and munitions investment would total $21.6 billion, a $900 million increase. High priority munitions such as the joint air-to-surface missiles, long range anti-ship missile, standard missile-6, joint direct attack munition, Hellfire and small diameter bomb are fully funded at the maximum production rate, budget documents noted. Missile defense and defeat systems would get $11.6 billion in acquisition accounts, a $400 million drop. However, there will be a total of $13.6 billion for these types of capabilities once spending on related initiatives are factored in, McCusker said. Nuclear programs would receive $31 billion in funding including $14 billion for next-generation systems such as the B-21 bomber, Columbia-class submarine and ground-based strategic deterrent. Command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems would get $10.2 billion, a $200 million increase. Science and technology efforts would grow $400 million to a total of $14.1 billion for initiatives such as AI, offensive and defensive hypersonic capabilities, directed energy and quantum sciences. Mission support activities would receive $70.9 billion. In a move that is certain to be controversial, the budget request includes $3.6 billion for border wall construction, as well as another $3.6 billion to backfill construction projects that were delayed in 2019 because money was reprogrammed for Trump's promised border wall after he declared a national emergency, McCusker said. Analysts have attacked the idea of including money in the Pentagon budget to build barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. American Enterprise Institute defense analysts Mackenzie Eaglen and Rick Berger said the border wall funding was “inappropriately included,” adding that the “real budget” for defense would be about $743 billion excluding the $7.2 billion for wall funding and backfilling delayed military construction projects. “That's basically just growth with inflation from 2019, and it continues a flat spending trajectory for years to come,” they said in a note to reporters. Looking longer term over the course of the future years defense program, the Defense Department topline would see relatively slow nominal growth, decreasing to $713 billion in fiscal year 2021, before increasing to $727 billion in 2022, $742 billion in 2023 and $747 billion in 2024, according to budget documents. Eaglen and Berger also criticized the Pentagon's focus on R&D while cutting procurement. “This strategy continues years of cutting existing weapons programs for the promise of future technological breakthroughs,” they said. “The military not only requires more advanced weapons to compete with Russia and China, but also needs immediate recapitalization for decades-old equipment. Carrying out the national defense strategy requires both military capacity and capability.” http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/12/pentagon-plans-to-cut-procurement-boost-rd-in-2020
December 17, 2018 | International, Naval
By: Nigel Pittaway MELBOURNE, Australia – Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne confirmed that the Australian government has finally concluded negotiations for the formal signing of a strategic partnering agreement for 12 large conventionally-powered attack submarines from Naval Group. Australia is acquiring the vessels under its $50 billion (U.S. $36.12 billion) Project Sea 1000 (Future Submarine) to replace its existing fleet of six Collins Submarines from the early 2030s. The subs will be the ‘Attack' class with the lead vessel named HMAS Attack. They will be fabricated in Australia to a design previously known as the Shortfin Barracuda 1A. Recent local media reports have suggested that negotiations between the parties had stalled, placing the government's timeline for the Collins replacement in jeopardy, but Pyne said on Thursday the program was still on track. “There's been a lot of ill-informed mythmaking around the negotiations but I'm very happy to say today the negotiations are complete,” Pyne said during sod-turning event at the site of the Future Submarine Construction Yard at Osborne in South Australia. “The strategic planning agreement will be signed in February next year and we can continue to get on with the submarine project, which has been under the design and mobilization contract for the last two years.” Declining to provide details of the intricacies of the agreement due to their commercial nature, Pyne said the negotiations were officially concluded at an Australian Government National Security Committee meeting in Melbourne on Dec. 10. “Suffice to say the Australian government's interests, the Australian taxpayer's interests, have been taken care of,” he said. “Naval Group Australia will deliver 12 regionally-superior submarines on time and on budget.” Australia's Chief of Navy, Vice Adm. Mark Noonan, also denied reports of an emerging capability gap between the retirement of the first Collins submarines and the Attack boats entering service, which some analysts have suggested might require a ‘Plan B' to be formulated. “I don't believe that's the case,” he told reporters. “We've got a very solid plan to ensure that there is no gap in our nation's submarine capability, and there is a very advanced plan that will see a number of our current Collins class submarines going through a life of type extension program, which will ensure that capability gap doesn't exist.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/12/14/australia-naval-group-conclude-sub-negotiations/