Contracts for November 3, 2021

On the same subject

• 

  December 4, 2020 | International, Land

  Rheinmetall’s advanced MK82-EP general purpose aircraft bomb wins orders in France and Germany

  December 2, 2020 - Rheinmetall's advanced MK-82-EP general purpose aircraft bomb has recently scored major successes in France and Germany. France's procurement authority, the Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA), has already placed the first serial production orders for the MK82-EP, which are earmarked for the Mirage 2000 and Rafale fighter jets. Furthermore, the German Air Force has selected the Rheinmetall MK82-EP to serve as the warhead of the GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition system, destined for its Tornado and Eurofighter platforms. Together, the orders encompass more than 2,000 MK82-bomb bodies, worth over €35 million in total. In October 2020 France's DGA successfully qualified the new MK82-EP (Enhanced Performance) 500-pound bomb body. This follows a five-year programme of development and extensive testing conducted by RWM Italia SpA, Rheinmetall's airborne ordnance centre of excellence in Italy, in cooperation with explosives manufacturer EURENCO. Engineered for maximum safety during storage, handling and operations, the state-of-the-art 500-pound MK82-EP warhead is an enhanced, fully interchangeable version of the standard MK82 bomb body, delivering improved effectiveness. The MK82-EP can be deployed in free fall mode or as a precision guided munition in tandem with Paveway, Enhanced Paveway, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM) or Armament Air-Sol Modulaire (AASM) kits. Led by DIEHL Defence, the GBU-54 team supplying the German Air Force includes RWM Italia S.p.A., Boeing for the guidance kit, and Junghans Microtec for the fuse. DIEHL has recently been awarded a contract to supply several hundred of these systems during the period 2021 to 2024. Thanks to this successful start in France and Germany, the MK82-EP is seen as a likely choice to arm the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) currently being jointly developed by the two countries, as well as serving as a new baseline for all Mirage 2000, Rafale and Eurofighter users. Rheinmetall AG Corporate Sector Defence Press and Information Oliver Hoffmann Rheinmetall Platz 1 40476 Düsseldorf Germany Phone: +49 211 473-4748 Fax: +49 211 473-4157 View source version on Rheinmetall: https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/latest_news/index_25728.php

• 

  October 2, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  One KC-46 delivery has been halted due to electrical system problems

  Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force halted a delivery of the KC-46 yet again after problems with the electrical system were found on one new tanker slated to make its way to the service. The issue was first disclosed during an Oct. 1 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said that a KC-46 that was supposed to have been delivered Sept. 25 by Boeing to Pease Air National Guard Base had been delayed. “They just learned that that delivery was canceled due to electrical problems with the aircraft,” she said to Ellen Lord, the Pentagon's top acquisition official. In a statement, Boeing said a “minor electrical issue” on a single KC-46 was found by the company during acceptance tests. “In flight, one of the radar warning receivers is indicating a fault through the plane's fault management system,” Boeing spokesman Larry Chambers said. “We think it may be a poor electrical connection that needs to be re-seated. We are currently evaluating a fix. Resolving this has caused a minor delay to delivery of this single airplane. Boeing expects to conclude this activity within the next several days and is working with the Air Force on a new delivery schedule.” The issue is not a design or safety-of-flight issue that would pose risk to the aircrew, he added. But Shaheen, speaking at the hearing, expressed frustration with Boeing over its repeated difficulties designing and building the new tankers, with challenges over the life span of the program that have included wiring issues and problems with the vision system that allows boom operators to safely refuel other planes. “I've spoken to a whole number of officials from Boeing from our military leadership as recently as last week with Gen. [Jacqueline] Van Ovost, who is the head of Air Mobility Command, all of whom have assured me that we've had good conversations between the [Department of Defense] and Boeing, and that the problems are being worked out. We're not going to continue to see these challenges,” Shaheen said. “And yet we've got another aircraft that's not being delivered because of another problem. So how do we fix this? Because it is an ongoing challenge that's affecting our ability to our national security, long term if we don't get these refueling tankers up and running.” Lord responded that KC-46 problems have included design and engineering flaws as well as issues occurring during the manufacturing of the jet. “The KC 46 has been an extremely problematical program. I speak with Leanne Caret, the CEO of the defense side of Boeing, on a regular basis about it,” Lord said. “One issue is frankly the technical solution. That was the original design [and] is now being redesigned, but also we have had a myriad of manufacturing issues with [foreign object debris] and other issues.” However, she said the root cause of the problems is the fixed-price firm contract used for the KC-46 program, which makes Boeing financially responsible for any costs beyond the $4.9 billion ceiling. So far, Boeing has spent more than $4.7 billion in company funds on the KC-46 program — almost equivalent to the Air Force's own investment in the program. The Air Force plans to buy 179 tankers, 38 of which have already been delivered to the service. Seven KC-46s have gone to Pease ANGB. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/10/01/kc-46-deliveries-have-been-halted-due-to-electrical-system-problems/

• 

  June 22, 2018 | International, Naval

  Upgrading US Navy ships is difficult and expensive. Change is coming

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is looking at extending the life of its surface ships by as much as 13 years, meaning some ships might be 53 years old when they leave the fleet. Here's the main problem: keeping their combat systems relevant. The Navy's front-line combatants ― cruisers and destroyers ― are incredibly expensive to upgrade, in part because one must cut open the ship and remove fixtures that were intended to be permanent when they were installed. When the Navy put Baseline 9 on the cruiser Normandy a few years ago, which included all new consoles, displays and computer servers in addition to the software, it ran the service $188 million. Now, the capability and function of the new Baseline 9 suite on Normandy is staggering. The cost of doing that to all the legacy cruisers and destroyers in the fleet would be equally staggering: it would cost billions. So why is that? Why are the most advanced ships on the planet so difficult to keep relevant? And if the pace of change is picking up, how can the Navy stay relevant in the future without breaking the national piggy bank? Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager, understands this issue better than most. At this week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium, Vandroff described why its so darn hard to upgrade the old ships and how future designs will do better. Here's what Vandroff had to say: “Flexibility is a requirement that historically we haven't valued, and we haven't valued it for very good reasons: It wasn't important. “When you think of a ship that was designed in the ‘70s and built in the ‘80s, we didn't realize how fast and how much technology was going to change. We could have said: ‘You know what? I'm going to have everything bolted.' Bolt down the consoles in [the combat information center], bolt in the [vertical launch system] launchers ― all of it bolted so that we could more easily pop out and remove and switch out. “The problem was we didn't value that back then. We were told to value survivability and density because we were trying to pack maximum capability into the space that we have. That's why you have what you have with the DDG-51 today. And they are hard to modernize because we valued survivability and packing the maximum capability into the minimum space. And we achieved that because that was the requirement at the time. “I would argue that now as we look at requirements for future ships, flexibility is a priority. You are going to have to balance it. What if I have to bolt stuff down? Well, either we are going to give up some of my survivability standards or I'm going to take up more space to have the equivalent standards with an different kind of mounting system, for example. And that is going to generate a new set of requirements ― it's going to drive design in different directions than it went before. “I suppose you could accuse the ship designers in the 1980s of failure to foresee the future, but that's all of us. And the point is they did what they were told to do. Flexibility is what we want now, and I think you will see it drive design from this point forward because it is now something we are forced to value.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/21/upgrading-us-navy-ships-is-difficult-and-expensive-change-is-coming/