October 8, 2019 | International, Land
With the surprise disqualification of the Raytheon-Rheinmetall Lynx, the Army has effectively left itself with one competitor for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, General Dynamics -- unless the Pentagon or Congress intervene.
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
WASHINGTON: Experts fear the Army has undermined a top priority program, the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, by disqualifying one of the only two remaining competitors for not delivering its prototype on time.
“I cannot believe that is the reason,” said a baffled Thomas Spoehr, a retired three-star who headed the Army's program analysis & evaluation office. There must be, he told me this morning, some more profound problem driving this decision: “Nobody wants to have this major program go forward with only one competitor.”
The news was broken by our colleague Jen Judson on Friday and confirmed to us by several sources. The Army declined official comment. Manufacturer Rheinmetall could not physically ship their Lynx-41 prototype from Germany to the US — which is strange, since they've managed to do so before — by the October first deadline. While some Army officials were willing to offer them an extension, the recently created Army Futures Command refused.
That leaves General Dynamics, offering an all-new design we describe below, as the sole competitor for the Engineering & Manufacturing Design (EMD) contract to be awarded early next year. A crucial caveat: Winning EMD does not guarantee General Dynamics will win the production contract, which will be awarded in 2023 in a competition open to all comers.
But any 2023 contender would have to refine their design at their own expense, without the constant feedback from the Army that comes with being on the EMD contract. That's a hard risk for a board to justify, given GD's advantage. And without a second competitor, all the Army's eggs are in the basket of GD succeeding, with no backup.
“I strongly suspect that [General Dynamics] has done a great job of tailoring a solution, developed over time through successes in other programs, for exactly what the US Army wants,” as expressed in roughly 100 detailed and rigid requirements, said George Mason scholar Jim Hasik. But, he said, that doesn't mean what the Army thinks it wants is the right solution, or that GD will deliver on budget and schedule.
“I would prefer that two or three contractors were proceeding to some trials of truth at Aberdeen in some months,” Hasik told me. “I do not single out GDLS; I just expect lower likelihood of success in non-competitive contracting. Any given bid may have problems of which even the bidder does not know.”
The timing of this news is particularly painful for the Army, because thousands of soldiers, contractors, and media will be heading to Washington for next-week's huge Association of the US Army conference. One of the highlights of last year's show was the Lynx prototype.
Why?
Disqualifying the Lynx doesn't make sense, said Spoehr, who as head of national defense studies at the Heritage Foundation has long urged the Army to replace its M2 Bradley troop carrier and other 1980s-vintage armored vehicle designs.
“I have to believe the Army will take another look at this situation,” Spoehr said.
Or, maybe not. The decision to disqualify the Rheinmetall-Raytheon team for missing the deadline is arguably, “the correct one when you consider schedule is the priority,” an industry source told me. But maybe schedule shouldn't be the priority, the source went on, because the current timeline — fielding the first combat-ready unit by 2026 — doesn't permit much innovation. “The vehicle they are asking for will not be significantly better than the current Bradley.” (General Dynamics disputes this hotly, not surprisingly, as we detail later in this story).
“I think the Army is pretty short-sighted,” the industry source said. “Personally, I don't see how the program survives in future budgets.”
Even before this news broke, skeptical Senate appropriators had already cut funding for Army Next Generation Combat Vehicles in their draft of the defense spending bill, although the House has not. But with the Hill so roiled by impeachment that it's unclear legislators will even be able to pass the annual defense bills — which were already headed for closed-door conferences in any case — we've not been able to get any but the most noncommittal comment from Congress. We'll update this story or write a sequel when we hear from the Hill.
The underlying anxiety here is that the Army has tried and failed repeatedly to modernize its Reagan-era arsenal over the past 30 years — the problem Army Futures Command was created to fix. Armored fighting vehicle programs, above all replacements for the Bradley troop carrier, have been particularly fraught. The Future Combat Systems family of vehicles, which included a lightweight Bradley replacement, was canceled in 2009, while the Ground Combat Vehicle, a better-armored and correspondingly heavier Bradley replacement, was cancelled in 2014. The Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle is the Army's third swing at this ball.
That puts tremendous pressure on Army Futures Command and General Dynamics to deliver. Their balancing act is to make something different and better enough it's worth replacing the Bradley instead of just upgrading it again, without taking on so much new technology that the program risks major delays and overruns.
The Army's modernization director for Next Generation Combat Vehicles, Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, spoke to me Friday just before the news broke about Rheinmetall. While he didn't speak to the number of competitors, he did emphasize that a company that doesn't win an Engineering & Manufacturing Design contract can still compete for Low-Rate Initial Production.
“The LRIP award is FY23,” Coffman said. “That's a free and open competition. So let's say you didn't have the time or didn't feel you had the money ... to compete starting on 1 October, you can further mature your product, you can test that product, and then enter back in to the competition in '23.”
We Have A Winner (By Default)?
Assuming General Dynamics does win the production contract in 2023, what will their vehicle look like? It will not resemble the Griffin III concept vehicle that vied with the Lynx on the floor of last year's Association of the US Army mega-conference, company officials told me. In fact, they said, the GD OMFV shares no major components with the ASCOD/Ajax lineage of combat vehicles, widely used in Europe, on whose proven chassis and automotive systems GD build its Griffin series, including its offering for the Army's Mobile Protected Firepower light tank.
“The suspension is a totally new design. The engine and transmission are totally different. Drive train is different. Exhaust placement is different,” Keith Barclay, director of global strategy for General Dynamics Land Systems, said in an interview. (The core of the engine is the same as MPF, but not the configuration, cooling, or transmission).
That's remarkable because Army leaders had said they were willing to go with a proven, pre-existing chassis to reduce risk, as long as the weapons and electronics were cutting-edge. As with many weapons programs, the Army plans to field OMFV in successively more advanced increments: Increment 1 will only have to meet minimum or “threshold” requirements, while Increment 2 will go after higher “objective” requirements.
“One of the problems we had with previous ground vehicle programs was we always tried to reach for technology that wasn't mature,” Coffman told me. “Now we've set the objective to those technologies that are on the cusp of maturation, so that if it does mature ... we can achieve[it] in Increment 2.”
Barclay and other GD execs told me this morning that the prototype they just delivered to the Army already meets some of the objective requirements for Increment 2, particularly for the gun and fire control. (They declined to offer more specifics). Meeting those requirements was what drove the all-new design.
“It had to be designed from the inside out,” Barclay told me. “Modifying an existing platform would not work.”
That said, Barclay went on, this is not new unproven tech. “These are very high Technological Readiness Level (TRL) components that have been through quite a bit of testing, and we've just packaged them and designed them... into a new configuration.” (Of course, “quite a bit of testing” isn't the same as actually being deployed on hundreds of vehicles in Spanish, Austrian, and — soon — British service, as was the case for many of the Griffin's components). While the GD OMFV's components aren't the same as those on the ASCOD/Ajax/Griffin series, they do build on that experience, Barclay said, as well as on decades of General Dynamics R&D for the cancelled FCS and GCV programs.
What's New?
So what are the innovations in the GD OMFV that make it a significant improvement over an upgraded Bradley? Most visible from the outside is the weapon, the one component the OMFV shares with the Griffin III prototype at AUSA last year. It's a new 50mm quick-firing cannon, largely developed by the Army's Armaments Center, which is many times more powerful than the 25mm on the Bradley or the 30mm weapons on many Russian vehicles. Whereas the Bradley gunner and commander sit in the turret, the OMFV's turret is unmanned, remote-controlled from a well-protected and well-connected crew compartment in the hull.
In fact, from the crew's perspective inside the vehicle, the most visible difference will probably be how much better their visibility is. Traditional armored vehicles rely on narrow viewports and periscopic sights, making them half-blind behemoths on the battlefield. But massive investments by the automotive industry — from backup cameras to self-driving cars — have driven down the cost and size of sensors. GD boasts their OMFV design offers “360 degree situational awareness” from cameras all around the vehicle. The sensor feeds are visible from screens at not only the crew stations but in the passenger area, so the infantry can know what kind of situation they may have to clamber out into.
Currently, the vehicle is configured for three crew and five infantry soldiers, the same as the Bradley and the Army's minimum requirement for OMFV. (The seats are designed to buffer blasts from mines and roadside bombs). But all eight seats are together in the hull, rather than having some in the turret, and each crew station can control any function, rather than each being specially hard-wired for the commander, gunner, and driver respectively. So GD expects that, as automation technology improves, it'll be possible to go down to just two crewmembers, freeing up a seat for a sixth passenger.
That ability to upgrade electronics is perhaps the single most important, if subtle, improvement over the Bradley. Designed in the 1970s and repeatedly upgraded since, the Bradley has repeatedly run into the limits of its electrical system. Troops in Iraq often had to turn equipment on and off because they couldn't run all of it at once. The Army is now increasing the Bradley's power, and they're even retrofitting it with an Active Protection System that uses electricity-hungry radars to detect and shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles.
But the OMFV will have Active Protection as standard equipment, rather than tacked on. And the all-new design lets GD build in the power, wiring, and — most crucial — the standardized interfaces (aka a Modular Open Systems Architecture) to make future electronic upgrades much easier, from anti-missile jammers to reconnaissance mini-drones to AI-assisted targeting systems.
“We have looked to the future about what power requirements will be,” Barclay told me. Their vehicle, he said, has “electrical power, both high voltage and low voltage, that will allow myriad capabilities that you could not put onto an existing combat vehicle today in the Army's inventory.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/bradley-replacement-army-risks-third-failure-in-a-row
June 3, 2024 | International, Naval
Terma was awarded a contract to supply four SCANTER 6002 naval surveillance radars for the 2 Belgian and 2 Netherlands Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare frigates.
June 8, 2020 | International, C4ISR
Andrew Eversden The Air Force awarded a contract potentially worth $35 million to Wickr, a secure communications platform provider, the Defense Department announced June 1. Under the two-year contract, the Air Force will use Wickr's secure recall, alert and messaging services. The cloud-based application suite will provide end-to-end encrypted file, video, chat, text and voice services for end users. The Air Force is obligating $7.7 million in fiscal 2020 funds at the time of the award, according to the contract announcement. The award was made by the Air Force Installation Contracting Center at Hurlburt Field in Florida. Joel Wallenstrom, CEO of Wickr, told C4ISRNET in a June 4 interview that the award was the largest contract his company has won. The San Francisco-based company has already established a relationship with the Air Force through the service's Strategic Financing program, which includes several internal innovation and small business outreach hubs. In April, Wickr announced the program had awarded his company a contract as part of $550 million in awards it gave out to 21 companies. According to Wallenstrom, Wickr's platform includes a federated network capability that allows a network administrator to create temporary environments for users to communicate with allies or family members without increasing risk. The platform "not only secures things on a day-to-day basis, but in very special circumstances you can create temporary secure operating environments with people of choice, but that doesn't mean you bring them into ... your environment permanently,” Wallenstrom said. https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2020/06/05/air-force-awards-multimillion-dollar-secure-communications-contract
April 8, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Valerie Insinna and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — On the morning of April 2, companies up and down the Pentagon's supply chain got an email from Eaton Aerospace, a mid-tier supplier that provides parts such as fuel pumps and hydraulics to defense primes for aircraft like the KC-46 tanker and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “The truly unprecedented situation with [the coronavirus] COVID-19 is jointly affecting our business, families and communities we live in,” said one such email, which was obtained by Defense News. “While the health and safety of our employees and those of our supply partners remains paramount, our industry is significantly impacted. ... As a result, our Eaton Grand Rapids, [Michigan], plant will [be] closed starting April 4, 2020 and will reopen on April 13, 2020." Similar emails for other locations followed. In a statement, Eaton Corp. spokeswoman Margaret Hagan acknowledged that the company was temporarily implementing closures “at a few sites,” but maintained that there would be no impact to the “critical support” provided to the U.S. military. “We've made the important decision to maintain operations during the COVID-19 crisis because Eaton products are critical to our global infrastructure,” she said. “As a strategic supplier of aerospace fuel, hydraulic, motion control, electrical and engine solutions for the aerospace and defense sector globally, Eaton's aerospace products and support services are vital not only to the military, but to the transport of passengers and goods around the world.” Although perhaps not a household name in the defense sector, Eaton is far from a small business, bringing in more than $21 billion in sales in 2019. However, the quiet closure of its production lines illustrates how widespread the impacts of COVID-19 have reached — past the major prime contractors like Boeing, or even its major subcontractors like Spirit AeroSystems, and to the large and small companies that populate the middle and lower tiers of its supply chain. “The whole supply chain is a mess right now,” said an employee of one electronics manufacturer that provides components for both commercial and defense products. The source, whose name and company affiliation Defense News is withholding to protect the individual from reprisal, described challenges with working from home and retaining workers on the production line. Some colleagues, the source said, are choosing to take paid leave or voluntary layoffs rather than risk exposure to COVID-19. “We are at 20 percent capability,” the source said. According to Jeremy Bash, a former Pentagon official now with Beacon Global, “there is deep concern among industry and department leaders that the second- and third-tier suppliers need to be protected." “There's a sense DoD [the Department of Defense] needs better visibility into the supply chain, mapping out how a part makes its way into a plane or ship," Bash added. “There is a growing number of tech companies providing software to illuminate supply chains, and since COVID, the phones of those companies have been ringing off the hook because the department now realizes supply chain concentration is a huge risk.” ndustrial shock waves But one doesn't have to dive down the supply chain toward Eaton to see that the defense market is taking a beating, particularly the companies that also have a strong exposure to the commercial market. Up until last month, financial analysts would have seen commercial sales as a major boon to the overall health of a defense supplier, but that has changed, as the economy has taken a nosedive, said Richard Aboulafia, a defense and aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “The commercial market is under siege, which means of course there is excess inventory, slumping revenue, major challenges on many levels,” he said. "On top of that, everybody faces the immediate impact of social distancing and workforce concerns. And on top of that, if you're heavily exposed to commercial, the harder time you might have getting credit. All of these are big issues. "The defense-industrial base, if it could somehow be removed from commercial aviation, we'd be in pretty good shape by the standards of the world economy. But we can't. They're intertwined.” Bloomberg reported Monday that Airbus sent a letter to employees over the weekend, warning that gaps in the supply chain, among other issues, will impact the company's ability to resume normal operations. Also on Monday, simulation firm CAE announced it was temporarily laying off 2,600 of its 10,500 global employees, while placing another 900 employees on a reduced work week. The company also instituted salary freezes and reductions for remaining staff, ranging from 50 percent for the CEO and executive team down to 10 percent for regular employees. Roughly 40 percent of CAE's overall revenue comes from defense contracts, according to the Defense News Top 100 list. Boeing, meanwhile, extended a shutdown of its Puget Sound, Washington, facilities, while also stopping work at its rotorcraft production line in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a result of the Puget Sound shutdown, Spirit AeroSystems announced last week that it is halting work at a number of locations. Small businesses that form a core of the Pentagon's future technological development may be particularly vulnerable, according to government data and analytics firm Govini. In a new data sheet, the company noted there are roughly 50,000 small businesses that provide innovation support for the DoD, all of which is vulnerable to economic upheaval. “If this ecosystem suffers widespread failure due to COVID-19, the resulting impact will stretch well beyond short-term disruptions,” Govini said. “These vendors are not just critical links in the DoD supply chain important for immediate purposes. They are also vital for the development of both next-generation systems in the midterm and revolutionary capabilities that will shape the competitive landscape for decades into the future.” Between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2019, roughly 28 percent of defense spending on underwater unmanned vehicles — a key part of the U.S. Navy's plan to build a fleet of the future — went to small businesses, according to Govini numbers. Small business contracts also accounted for 30 percent of the DoD's research on artificial intelligence during that same time period. Martijn Rasser, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned Defense News last month that “for small business, a shutdown would be extremely difficult to get through because even with bailouts and economic stimulus, once those businesses close up, its really hard to get those started again.” “If an airline goes out of business, the planes don't disappear — you can start over. If it's a highly specialized manufacturing company, those employees are going to disperse and try to find other work. So I think that's something to be very cognizant of because of all the consolidation in the defense industry,” he added. “If they have to curtail operations for an extended period of time, it's extremely difficult to get it going again.” What's the Pentagon's response? Starting March 20, the Pentagon began issuing guidance on how to support industry. But a three-day span last week showed how those efforts remain a moving target, particularly in relation to the smallest suppliers. On March 30, the department's acting director of defense pricing and contracting, Kim Herrington, issued guidance to contracting officers that essentially said industry should not be penalized for missing performance targets as a result of the ongoing pandemic. “We must do our utmost to ensure that both the Department and the vital industrial base that support us remain healthy for the duration of this emergency and emerge as strong as ever from the challenges of this pandemic,” Herrington wrote. But some in Congress feel the department is still not doing enough to clarify policy changes for contracting officers and defense companies. On April 1, a group of Ohio lawmakers wrote to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord, warning that “we are concerned that guidance to the defense contractor workforce remains ambiguous and lacks uniformity in application,” particularly in terms of communication from department contracting officers to small companies. Over the past several years, the Pentagon has worked to delegate decision-making authorities to low-level contracting officers. But while that may work to empower contracting officers to find creative solutions to problems under normal circumstances, during a pandemic, these officials are ill-prepared to decipher “uncertain, often conflicting guidance,” the lawmakers said. The lawmakers asked that contracting officers be directed to ensure that contractors are allowed to work remotely to the maximum extent possible; that contractors be given “maximum flexibility to meet their contractual obligations”; that efforts be made to not have “avoidable reductions” in the workforce; and that companies involved in research and development work be clearly labeled as essential personnel. And on April 2, two trade groups — the National Defense Industrial Association and the Professional Services Council — asked Congress to instate a six-month delay for a legal requirement included in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that prohibits the government from doing business with companies that work with vendors Huawei and ZTE. That language “will impose significant financial and operational costs on medium- and small-sized firms at a moment of substantial uncertainty and hardship,” at a time when they are dealing with the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, the letter stated. Later in the day, the DoD released a statement providing clarification on previous announcements. The department confirmed that higher progress payment rates — which had been jumped the previous week — will apply to already completed work, and not just future production. The new cash-flow rules should result in more than $3 billion in new cash moving into industry, according to department estimates. But that prediction came with a warning: The Pentagon “has high expectations that that prime companies are ensuring cash flow is moving to small businesses in their respective supply chains who need it most.” So far, the Defense Contract Management Agency has modified approximately 1,400 contracts with increased rates, the announcement noted. Contracting officials are working to ensure invoices at the higher progress payment rate keep arriving on time, with the department claiming there have been “no reported delays on contractor submitted invoices.” The announcement also stated that any delay related to COVID-19 issues will result in “an equitable adjustment of the contract schedule and cost,” meaning the department will adjust the contracts so that the vendor does not take an economic hit. The steps taken by the department are important, said Bash, the former Pentagon official. “The most powerful force the government can bring to help these companies is to say to industry: ‘We have money,' ” he said. A wildcard, Bash noted, is the $17 billion in national security-focused funding made available under the most recent stimulus package passed by Congress. However, Byron Callan, an industry analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, warns that more money doesn't necessarily mean less problems. “The DoD faces the same issues as any other branch of the government or the Fed that is providing more cash to address the crisis — if people aren't at work because of COVID-19, that cash won't help much in keeping a factory or office open and all projects on schedule," Callan said. For Aboulafia, increasing the value of progress payments is a good first step for increasing the flow of cash to suppliers. “In times like this, it really is about access to cash because of the risk of credit markets freezing up for commercial companies. Accelerated payments, maybe loan guarantees should be considered," Aboulafia said. But he's realistic that the defense industry isn't the only issue on the table for the Trump administration. “I think there's a lot that government can do,” Aboulafia said. "Unfortunately there's a lot that government has to do because the entire economy has been put into a medically induced coma.” https://www.defensenews.com/coronavirus/2020/04/08/the-pentagons-supply-chain-faces-an-economy-under-siege