Back to news

December 17, 2024 | International, C4ISR, Security

CISA Directs Federal Agencies to Secure Cloud Environments | CISA

On the same subject

  • Fincantieri CEO on winning the US Navy’s frigate competition

    May 5, 2020 | International, Naval

    Fincantieri CEO on winning the US Navy’s frigate competition

    By: Tom Kington ROME — As CEO of Italy's state-controlled Fincantieri since 2002, Giuseppe Bono, has built cruise, merchant and naval vessels, including the FREMM frigate, for the Italian navy. Last week the type was picked by the U.S. sea service for its newest frigate, the FFG(X), in a deal worth $5.58 billion if options for nine vessels are exercised after the first ship. The FFG(X) will be produced at Wisconsin's Marinette Marine shipyard, which Fincantieri bought in 2008 and where it already builds Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships for the U.S. Navy and Saudi Arabia with Lockheed Martin. In an interview with Defense News, Bono explained why FREMM beat off the competition, why shipyards should always be prime contractors, and why building cruise ships makes you punctual. What are the reasons you won this competition? In the U.S., more than elsewhere, the quality-price ratio was crucial. And our vessel fit the requirement. The U.S. wanted a ship with anti-submarine capability and this ship is unique in its class because it has that capability. The other competitors offered ships derived from other designs. The customer also wanted a ship which was already at sea. In a way we were lucky. On paper, the other offerings might have been great, but we are operational. Our proposal was also more complete because the design is extremely flexible thanks to the possibility of fitting different defense systems. We had also studied an AEGIS version of the FREMM with Lockheed Martin and knew it would not need large, structural work. What was your reaction when you heard you had won? My colleagues were more emotional about than me. I pursue objectives and strategy. You teamed with Lockheed Martin on the LCS program but here you went alone. We never considered a U.S. partner. This bid was different to the past, with a new approach. In this case the shipbuilders were candidates to be prime contractors. And with a track record with 16 LCS orders for the U.S. and four for Saudi Arabia we are an American shipyard, this time with an Italian design. We have worked very well with Lockheed Martin, but as prime contractor on the Littoral Combat Ship it was the point of contact with the customer, meaning the yard was a step back and that sometimes led to a short circuit. When the shipyard is speaking to the customer as prime, it facilitates the relationships and leads to a better product and lower prices because certain decisions can be made faster. You will, however, work with U.S. firm Gibbs and Cox on the FFG(X). Gibbs and Cox frequently works with the U.S. Navy and knows its needs perfectly. We have a long and positive experience working with them on the LCS and we teamed with them to adapt the FREMM for the U.S. Navy. As work gets underway at Marinette will you need to hire new workers and make further infrastructure improvements? A lot of the work we needed to do at Marinette has already been done. When we first took over, in a springtime, we were shocked to find that the forecourts were muddy due to snowmelt. Now we have paved them over and increased efficiencies in terms of the yard's layout. We will need to find extra space because the FFG(X) will overlap with LCS construction, but we have shown we can build two FFG(X) vessels simultaneously as well as LCS vessels at Marinette. That said, depending on future programs, if the opportunity arose to buy a new yard, we will consider it. We would not be against the possibility, but it is not an issue now. There have been some legislative provisions requiring Buy American for certain FFG(X) components. How will this affect you going forward on this ship? On the LCS there are a number of Italian components, albeit a very limited number. The vessel also has Rolls Royce gas turbines, not GE, showing that price and quality always win out. On the LCS, the four diesel sets for power generation were built by our subsidiary Isotta Fraschini Motori. They are also on the Italian FREMMS. Now we will see if they can be used on the U.S. vessels. The Freedom LCS class experienced delays at the outset. How are you going to try and avoid that for FFG(X), understanding that there are always challenges with a first-of-class ship? There is a difference between a ship and other platforms like an aircraft or an helicopter. A ship does not have a prototype, only the first in class. The prototype of a ship becomes operational. This means the first vessel needs more time than the successive ships. On the LCS program the construction time sped up and prices fell as it accelerated. Is this the biggest ever win for an Italian firm in the U.S. defense market? Yes, I think so. It the result of working well and showing you are serious, of delivering on time and on budget. All these aspects are strongly taken into account by the customer and they give you an advantage. This is fundamental and one of our characteristics, derived in part from our work on cruise ships, which are built on a turnkey basis. The discipline there is unique. You need to deliver on a specific day which is established years earlier, otherwise the penalties never stop. Being punctual is in our DNA. Add to that we are always prime contractor, and a cruise ship is no less complex than a naval ship. In the military sector, delivering on time happens rarely. There are many examples of delays in some countries which can be almost infinite. Turning to Europe, there is ongoing consolidation in the German shipbuilding sector. How does that affect your plans to launch a type of European naval Airbus with French yard Naval Group? With Germany we have a consolidated and long-standing partnership related to the submarine sector. Consolidation must happen in Europe if it wants to count for something in the world, for this reason our goal must be a common defence. There are four of five major yards in the U.S. We cannot think of having more than that in Europe. We must consolidate. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/04/interview-fincantieri-ceo-bono-on-winning-the-us-navys-frigate-competition/

  • Missile Defense Agency to inject competition into homeland missile defense contract

    April 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Missile Defense Agency to inject competition into homeland missile defense contract

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Missile Defense Agency plans to hold a competition that could split up the work among contractors to modernize and sustain America's missile defense system, which is designed to destroy intercontinental ballistic missile threats. Boeing has held the development and sustainment contract for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense systems in place at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Boeing's contract is set to expire in 2023. The GMD system is made up of more than 44 Ground-Based Interceptors buried in silos in the ground along with ground control stations, detection and fire control systems, and other support infrastructure. Boeing received a sole-source $6.6 billion award in 2018 to build a new silo and 20 more GBIs, as well as to sustain the system. But Vice Adm. Jon Hill, the MDA's director, told an audience in March at an Association of the U.S. Army event that “we know that contract is not giving us everything that we need for the future, so we are going to compete that contract downstream.” The agency is working to develop a Next-Generation Interceptor that would replace the current GBIs with more capable interceptors. Its plan to upgrade the GBI's exoatmospheric kill vehicle with a redesigned version was canceled in 2019 due to technical problems. Rather than rework that program, the agency decided to design an entirely new interceptor and stop building new GBIs. A request for proposals for the NGI is due imminently. But along with a new NGI, “we are going to make sure that ground systems, sensors and fire control, all the rest of the system, we have the opportunity to inject that competition because I think that is very important,” Hill said. The MDA previously considered splitting up the contract several times, believing that would reduce cost and create efficiency in the program, but nothing materialized toward that goal. This time, the MDA has released two requests for information with the possibility of splitting up the contract. The most recent RFI was posted on Beta.Sam.Gov in March. “I will tell you that our lead system integrator does a great job today and the partnerships with industry within that construct do a great job, but we think that it's so large and complex we should be doing everybody a favor by being able to split that up without losing the integration among all those pieces,” Hill said, “so our intent is to move in that direction.” The agency “is exploring different approaches for fulfilling the GMD Program Element requirements. Acquisition approaches under consideration range from an award of multiple contracts to execute segments/missions of the program scope to a single contract to execute the entirety of the program scope,” the RFI states. “Essential to all of the acquisition approaches under consideration is the establishment of an enduring arrangement strategy for the execution of the [Weapon Systems Integration (WSI)] functions across the program lifecycle, either under a single prime contract, or as one of the multiple contracts.” The RFI lays out a possible plan to split up the contract into five pieces. One contractor would provide the NGI, which is being addressed through a separate request for proposals. Another would be responsible for legacy and future ground systems, and another for sustaining the existing GBIs. And a company would operate the weapon system along with military operators and would run fleet maintenance scheduling and deconfliction, site operations, test support, and depot and parts management, the RFI lays out. Lastly, a contractor would serve as the weapon systems integrator, making it responsible for overall GMD integration “including physical and logical integration of the GMD components, GMD system and MDA enterprise level integration, planning and execution of all necessary testing to verify and validate overall requirements compliance,” the RFI states. Responses to the RFI are due April 10. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/04/02/missile-defense-agency-to-inject-competition-into-homeland-missile-defense-contract/

  • La Direction de la maintenance aéronautique (DMAé) dresse un bilan positif de ses débuts

    May 25, 2021 | International, Aerospace

    La Direction de la maintenance aéronautique (DMAé) dresse un bilan positif de ses débuts

    Créée par le décret du 18 avril 2018 à l'occasion de la réforme du maintien en condition opérationnelle (MCO) aéronautique, la DMAé est responsable du soutien en service des matériels aéronautiques afin de garantir la disponibilité des matériels à coût maîtrisé. La stratégie de la DMAé vise à globaliser et verticaliser les contrats en responsabilisant les industriels, en leur assignant des objectifs et en les rémunérant en conséquence tout en leur donnant de la visibilité sur la durée des contrats. A ce stade, onze contrats « verticalisés » ont déjà été notifiés dont le Rafale, le Tigre et l'A400M. Une quinzaine de contrats supplémentaires est prévue en 2021 et 2022. Un plan d'actions vise aussi à améliorer la mise en œuvre de la navigabilité étatique. Par ailleurs, la DMAé met en œuvre la transformation numérique et digitale du domaine avec le projet Brasidas, futur système d'information du MCO aéronautique. Son premier incrément devrait être déployé mi-2022 sur les flottes Caracal et le Système de drones tactiques (SDT) Patroller. Aerobuzz, 24 mai

All news