Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - February 18, 2020

On the same subject

• 

  June 10, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  US Air Force delays full-rate production decision for KC-46 aircraft

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force will delay a full-rate production milestone for the KC-46 aerial refueling tanker to the end of fiscal 2024 to correspond with a fix for one of the aircraft's key systems, the service announced late Monday. The Pentagon's independent weapons tester — Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Robert Behler — intends to conclude operational testing of the KC-46 only after prime contractor Boeing fixes the tanker's critical deficiencies and has finalized its production configuration. “Accordingly, the Air Force will defer the KC-46 full rate production decision until after the completion of [initial operational test and evaluation], and the receipt of the statutorily-required Beyond Low Rate Initial Production report from [Behler],” the Air Force said in a statement. The KC-46 program has several remaining category 1 deficiencies, the term used by the Pentagon to describe the most serious form of technical problems. Two of the deficiencies involve the aircraft's remote vision system, which is a series of cameras and sensors used by the boom operator to see outside the KC-46 and refuel other aircraft. The Air Force has contended that the RVS does not properly function in all weather and lighting conditions; the service has refused to deploy the KC-46 until the problem is fixed. Boeing in April agreed to completely redesign the system on its own dime, which will take until at least 2023. One other issue involves the KC-46 boom, which was developed to meet NATO-specific requirements but cannot refuel the A-10 aircraft. The Air Force is paying to redesign the boom actuator, as the service signed off on the original design and did not realize until afterward that it did not meet the specifications needed to refuel the A-10. In March, the Air Force announced an additional category 1 deficiency after maintainers found fuel leaking between the tanker's primary and secondary fuel protection barriers. It is unclear whether this is still a problem, as Boeing had already developed a fix and began retrofitting aircraft when the issue was revealed. “Given its confidence in deficiency resolution timelines for both the aerial refueling boom and Remote Vision System, the Air Force is rescheduling the KC-46's Full Rate Production Decision milestone to late Fiscal Year 2024,” the service stated. The Air Force notes that delaying the full-rate production decision will not affect the program's cost — which is locked into place courtesy of a firm, fixed-price deal with Boeing that holds the contractor financially responsible for cost overruns;nor will it cause the service to alter its current delivery schedule. Boeing is already producing KC-46s at “full rate,” which for the program is 15 tankers per year. It delivered the first KC-46 to McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, in January 2019. Since then, Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, and Pease Air National Guard Base, New Hampshire, have also taken on new KC-46s. Boeing is set to produce 179 KC-46s over the program of record. The company has racked up cost overruns of about $4.6 billion in excess of the $4.9 billion contract it was awarded in 2011. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/09/the-air-force-delays-a-full-rate-production-decision-for-the-kc-46/

• 

  March 20, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Lockheed Martin is Waging War on Boeing’s F-15EX

  BY MARCUS WEISGERBER The F-35 makers sees the Pentagon's plans to buy new F-15s for the first time in 19 years as a threat. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has reportedly been racking up kills against older warplanes during U.S. military drills in Nevada — even the F-15, whose record in real combat is a flawless 104 to zero. Now the two jets are heading into a fierce dogfight, one that doesn't involve missiles or guns. The battle between Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Boeing's F-15EX is being fought by lobbyists in and around Congress, which is beginning to review the Pentagon's fiscal 2020 budget request. Tens of billions of dollars are up for grabs over the coming decade. This week, Pentagon officials proposed buying new F-15s for the first time since 2001, even though top Air Force officials have said as recently as two weeks ago that they didn't necessarily want the the planes. For nearly two decades, Air Force officials have argued against buying so-called fourth-generation planes, preferring for stealthier fifth-generation planes with newer technology. The proposed F-15 purchase is rather small: eight jets in 2020 and a total of 80 through 2024. By comparison, the Pentagon wants to buy 78 F-35s in 2020, with 48 going to the Air Force. SUBSCRIBE Receive daily email updates: Subscribe to the Defense One daily. Be the first to receive updates. But Pentagon budget documents also signal that the Air Force could buy hundreds of F-15s over the next decade. A tranche of 144 planes would “initially refresh” squadrons that fly Cold War-era F-15C Eagles designed for air-to-air combat. And the plane has the “potential to refresh the remainder of the F-15C/D fleet and the F-15E fleet.” In all, that's more than 400 planes. That was enough to draw a full-court press from Lockheed. One day after that announcement, company officials began circulating a three-page white paper detailing the “F-35's decisive edge” over unnamed fourth-generation warplanes. Defense One reviewed the white paper. Lockheed's arguments boil down to bang-for-the-buck: The F-35 will cost about the same or less than the F-15 soon (the long-criticized price has in fact been coming down), its operating costs will be less than the F-15's within six years, and it can fly a more diverse set of missions. Boeing's argument: The F-35 was never intended to replace the air-to-air F-15C — but the F-15EXcould do so while expanding those squadrons' capabilities. Pilots would not need to extensive training to fly the jet, which could carry heavy loads of weapons, plus Eagle bases would not need major infrastructure upgrades. And the new F-15EX is multirole, similar to the F-15E Strike Eagle, meaning that it could strike targets in the air, on the ground or at sea. Boeing has been pitching new F-15s to the Air Force on and off for more than a decade, most recently offering a similar version of the plane it builds for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latest effort started to pick up steam last summer. The idea was embraced within parts of the Air Force, but not by top Air Force leaders. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson acknowledged on Feb. 28 that the planes were not in the service's initial budget plans. But analysis by the Joint Staff and Pentagon Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office “on the kinds of capabilities that we require in the aviation realm” led officials to recommend buying the F-15EX, a senior defense official said. Elaine McCusker, the Pentagon deputy comptroller, said Tuesday that former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made the decision to include the F-15EX in the Defense Department's budget request. “The F-35 remains a critical program for the joint force as we look to the future and the kinds of capabilities we require,” Lt. Gen. Anthony Ierardi, director of force structure, resources and assessment on the Joint Staff, said Tuesday. “The F-15EX provides additional capacity and readiness, especially in the near years to mid years, as we look at the threats and the kinds of combat potential that we needed to bring to bear.” Whether Congress agrees with that rationale is yet to be seen. In February, five Republican senators — all with ties to Lockheed F-35 manufacturing work or F-35 bases — sent a letter to President Trump in opposition of the F-15EX. “We are extremely concerned that, over the last few years, the DoD has underfunded the F-35 Program and relied on Congress to fund increases in production, sustainment, and modernization,” they group led by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote. “In order to meet the overmatch and lethality goals laid out in the National Security Strategy, the DoD needs to make these investments in the F-35 to affordably deliver and operate this fifth-generation fighter fleet. The F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, and survivable air dominance fighter, and now is the time to double down on the program.” The 2020 budget request includes $11.2 billion to buy 78 F-35s — 48, which would be Air Force jets. That money would also go toward improving jets already built. Lawmakers have routinely added F-35s to the Pentagon's request. For instance, last year they added 16 planes to the 77 requested by the Defense Department. The 2020 budget request includes $1.1 billion for the eight F-15EX jets. Some of that money would go toward standing up the production line. About a month after Bloomberg first reported in December that eight F-15EX jets would be in the budget request, Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed's CEO, said Pentagon leaders told her that F-15 buys would not be at the expense of the F-35. “The combat proven F-35 is the National Defense Strategy in action and the program continues to see strong support throughout the Pentagon, the U.S. Services, Congress and the White House,” the company said in an emailed statement. Pentagon officials have been insisted that any F-15EX buys would not eat into planned F-35 buys. In all, the Pentagon plans to buy a total 2,443 jets over the coming decades. “If Congress changes that to all F-35s, they'll be all F-35s, we understand that,” Maj. Gen. David Krumm, director of strategic plans in the office of the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements at the Pentagon, said Thursday at the Mitchell Institute. “But based upon the resources we have and the ownership costs of the platforms, we think that this is the best way that we can present the nation's Air Force and the best way we can get to a capabilities and capacities that we have. “If we have more resources, I think we need to have a conversation about what it is we go for,” he said. “But based upon the resources that we have, we think that this is the right way to go.” https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/03/lockheed-martin-waging-war-boeings-f-15ex/155598

• 

  June 21, 2018 | International, C4ISR

  How the Army will plan cyber and electronic warfare operations

  Mark Pomerleau   With cyber playing a critical role in conflict going forward, the Army has begun to recognize the need to have organic cyber planners within a brigade's staff to offer commanders options related to cyber as well as electronic warfare. Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities, or CEMA cells, have been stood up in each brigade acting as planners to provide targeting options and capabilities to get at commander objectives just as an artillery planner would offer the commander choices related to their field for a pending operation. At the tactical level, these two disciplines – cyber and electronic warfare – have become intertwined. “When I talk to Army commanders and staffs, I try to make the point that I want you to worry less about whether it's a cyber or EW effect,” Lt. Col. Christopher Walls, deputy director for strategy and policy, at the Army's Cyber Directorate within the G-3/5/7, said at the C4ISRNET Conference in May. For example, Walls said for a river crossing mission, a commander might say he needs to buy a few hours to get a battalion across. The CEMA cell, in turn, would look across the capability sets in its portfolio and come up with a course of action. These cells potentially have the ability to allow the commander to target local internet service providers or local routers and prevent opposing forces from using them. The teams may also have an electronic warfare capability that can jam local area network protocols. Finally, these teams might know where mobile switching centers are by digitally geolocating them allowing physical strikes to take them out, Walls said. “I don't want the commander to worry about which of those three things, I just want him to talk to me in terms of desired objective and effects and then us, along with the staff, will determine which capability makes sense,” Walls said. “That's kind of the way we're thinking about the tactical fight.” The best choice comes down to understanding the commander's objectives and intent in order to offer the best solution. “What I would do is understand his intent, what effect he wants and what I'll do is submit that in a formal request and I'll let the higher echelons determine if they can provide that effect,” Capt. Daniel Oconer, brigade CEMA officer, told C4ISRNET during a recent visit to the National Training Center. “In general, all I really need to know for my planning processes is understand what the maneuver force wants to do,” he added. “How do tanks and Bradleys [move], how are the troops on the ground moving. Then, what is their mission? What is their objective? What is the commander's intent? Once I understand that I throw some CEMA flavor, so to say, onto it and then enable them to accomplish their mission.” Oconer is currently billeted as a 29 series electronic warfare officer. The Army will begin to transition these individuals into the cyber branch, or 17 series, so they will all eventually be cyber planners in the CEMA cell. “The way that we're transforming our electronic warfare professionals is they will become cyber operators. They will be the face inside our brigade combat teams and our maneuver formations for cyber operational planning,” Maj. Gen. John Morrison, commander of the Cyber Center of Excellence, said during a May speech. “They're complimentary. You cannot look at electronic warfare professionals and cyber operators in isolation.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2018/06/20/how-the-army-will-plan-cyber-and-electronic-warfare-operations/