Eurodrone engine candidates tout wares as decision draws near

On the same subject

• 

  February 10, 2020 | International, Naval

  Defense Secretary Mark Esper on how the Navy can get to 355 ships

  By: Aaron Mehta and David B. Larter WASHINGTON — Despite expected cuts to shipbuilding programs in the fiscal year 2021 budget request, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper is committed to a bigger, but much lighter, naval force, he said in an exclusive interview with Defense News. In the wake of reports that the Navy may cut shipbuilding in its upcoming budget request, Esper said he is “fully committed” to building a fleet of 355 ships or larger. But to get there, the Navy is going to have to fundamentally reshape itself around smaller ships that can be more quickly bought than the large, exquisite designs the service now relies on — a shift that could have big implications for both the industrial base and the carrier force. Such a plan would mark a departure from the current Navy force structure assessment that calls for twice the number of larger ships over small surface combatants: 104 large, 52 small. But inverting that structure is essential to building a bigger, more deadly fleet that lives within the constraints of future budgets that the Pentagon expects to remain largely flat, Esper said. To get there, the Navy must push hard on fielding lightly manned ships, Esper said, an effort that has been a major focus of Naval Sea Systems Command's Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office in recent years. The first step, though, is getting through the process of figuring out what the fleet should look like. “What we have to tease out is, what does that future fleet look like?” Esper said. “I think one of the ways you get there quickly is moving toward lightly manned [ships], which over time can be unmanned. “We can go with lightly manned ships, get them out there. You can build them so they're optionally manned and then, depending on the scenario or the technology, at some point in time they can go unmanned. “To me that's where we need to push. We need to push much more aggressively. That would allow us to get our numbers up quickly, and I believe that we can get to 355, if not higher, by 2030.” Cuts versus growth In addition to the reported cut of a Virginia-class submarine out of the FY21 budget, it is expected that other cuts may be coming in the short term for the Navy. Late last year, a memo from the White House's Office of Management and Budget to the Defense Department, obtained by Defense News, outlined a series of cuts over the next five years that OMB contends would shrink the size of the fleet. The cuts outlined in the OMB memo included cutting a submarine, a next-generation frigate and a Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer from the 2021 budget. On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the Navy intends to request eight ships in its 2021 budget, which would be four fewer than was requested in 2020, but that the budget restored the missing Arleigh Burke. The Navy contends that even with the cuts, the service is still on a path to growth. In a recent interview with Defense News, acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly said the budget documents that leaked were not final. Esper noted that his stamp on the 2021 budget was relatively limited, given he took office in August, at which point most of the service budget work had already been completed. “The services have already developed their budgets at that point,” Esper said. “So now it's at OSD level. As you know, at this point I was able to go through budgets, free up money. I was able to move some money around, but, to me, my big impact will be on the upcoming budget.” Lighter Navy Esper's backing of a larger Navy built on the backs of lightly or optionally manned ships echoes calls by Modly to get to a fleet of 355 ships in the next 10 years, and is in line with recent statement by the Navy's top officer, Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday. At the USNI Defense Forum in December, Gilday said the Navy needed to change the way it built its ships. “I know that the future fleet has to include a mix of unmanned,” Gilday said. “We can't continue to wrap $2 billion ships around 96 missile tubes in the numbers we need to fight in a distributed way, against a potential adversary that is producing capability and platforms at a very high rate of speed. We have to change the way we are thinking.” Congress, however, has been reluctant to back the push for more unmanned ships, believing that the Navy hasn't done enough work on how the concept of operations would work or how they'd support them. Esper said his office would be taking a leading role in bringing Congress to the table on a new fleet design. “DoD will run this ... I want to invite some of our congressional interested parties in, certainly from the defense committees, to observe the process and watch what we're doing and how we're going about it,” Esper said. “That's part of what I want to do, is to invite folks in.” Retired Navy and defense officials will also be involved in the planning and outreach process to make sure the department is on the right track, Esper continued. “We talk about the gray beards as validators, folks who make sure that nobody's putting their finger on the scale, that we've considered all factors,” Esper said. “I want it to be that type of process, if we can get there.” Expanding the fleet with more small, lightly manned ships will also increase opportunities for smaller shipyards to enter the shipbuilding industrial base, a proposal that may be attractive for congressional members in an election year. The secretary stressed that “the United States must have an expanded and healthy industrial base with modern shipyards” to make such a reality happen, adding that “I think we can actually expand the number of shipyards in the United States and highly skilled workers [as well] around the country to ensure adequate capacity.” In terms of planning, Esper said the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), along with the Navy, will be conducting a series of war games and exercises in the coming months in order to figure out the way forward. But any major decisions will be based around the completion of a new joint war plan for the whole department, which the secretary said should be finished this summer. “I think once we go through this process with the future fleet — that'll really be the new foundation, the guiding post,” Esper said. “It'll give us the general direction we need to go, and I think that'll be a big game changer in terms of future fleet, for structure, for the Navy and Marine Corps team.” The Carrier Question As the Defense Department looks to craft a lighter Navy, the obvious question is: What will become of the Navy's 11 super carriers? Defense Department officials such as Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin have publicly questioned whether ground-based hypersonic missiles might more effectively deter China than an aircraft carrier that he believes is increasingly vulnerable. Esper said he's not sure what the ultimate answer is on aircraft carriers – but rejected the idea there is a binary choice to be had. “This discussion often comes down to a binary: Is it zero or 12?” Esper said. “First of all, I don't know. I think carriers are very important. I think they demonstrate American power, American prestige. They get people's attention. They are a great deterrent. They give us great capability.” The Navy may have to think about new ways of building carriers, however, if they are going to stay relevant in the future, Esper said. As an example, he pointed to what Japan is doing with its F-35B jump-jet models, which have been tested for use on lighter ships previously designed for use with helicopters. “There are various ways to do carriers,” Esper said. “So, we can talk numbers or we can talk the sizes of carriers, right? There's been discussion in the past about: do you keep building big carriers or do you go to smaller carriers, Lightning carriers? Acting Secretary Modly and I have talked about that. “I think this gets into the future fleet designs we look at. That will be one element that we look at.” https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/02/09/defense-secretary-mark-esper-on-how-the-navy-can-get-to-355-ships

• 

  December 10, 2023 | International,

  US Army eyes overhaul of theater-level signals intelligence tools

  The Pentagon is putting a premium on digital weaponry and sensors, including jammers, hacking tools and devices that can quickly cue onto communications.

• 

  October 5, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  White House warns of ‘domestic extinction’ of suppliers in industrial base report - and DoD is ready to help with cash

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — A combination of Chinese influence and budgetary uncertainty means America's defense industrial base is decaying at the lower levels, with some vital suppliers facing “domestic extinction,” a new study from the Trump administration is warning — and direct investment from the administration appears to be the solution. The study, the result of an executive order issued by president Donald Trump last July, also warns that if the situation is not remedied, the Pentagon faces “limited capabilities, insecurity of supply, lack of R&D, program delays, and an inability to surge in times of crisis.” The language seems dire, but much of the 140-page report appears to contain little new for those who have paid attention to defense industrial issues over the last several years. Many of the concerns outlined in the report echo that of a Defense Department internal study, released earlier this year, which warned long-term trends, including demographics and sole-source suppliers going out of business, were set to create major hurdles for the department. The report has been long coming. Trump ordered its creation in July of 2017, with Peter Navarro, his trade czar and a well-known China hawk, as the coordinating point man. At the time, Navarro said the study was being driven by concerns that “we cannot retain a preeminent military without a healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base.” By May 2018, the Pentagon had sent its conclusions into the White House for coordination which set industry expectations of a release shortly thereafter. However, the release dated continued to be pushed back, due largely to other news overtaking the White House. Trump, along with Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, is expected to appear at the White House Friday around 1:45 PM eastern time to sign several actions into law. The full report will be released shortly after. The report identifies five macro issues facing the defense industrial base: Sequestration and uncertainty in U.S government spending, which create instability and drives small firms away from defense work A decline of U.S. manufacturing capability and capacity, leaving weaknesses throughout the supply chain Antiquated U.S. government business practices, which the report warns leads to contracting delays and discourages innovation Industrial policies of competitor nations, both due to “collateral damage of globalization” and specific targeting by great powers like China And diminished U.S. STEM and trade skills, which are creating gaps in the workforce. The Departments of Defense, Energy, and Labor all submitted recommendations in the report, to deal with 300 individual weak points that are of concern. Notably, DoD's conclusion calls for the expansion of “direct investment in the lower tier of the industrial base,” through the department's Defense Production Act Title III, Manufacturing Technology, and Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment programs. That would address “critical bottlenecks, support fragile suppliers, and mitigate single points-of-failure.” Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters it would not be “prudent” at this point to put a total dollar figure on what investment might be coming, but a senior administration official, speaking on background ahead of the report release, identified several shops being given extra cash. Those include $70 million fr a plant that produces gun components, in order to launch modernization and risk mitigation programs, as well as $1 million for the facility that produces the Abrams tank to procure better tooling. DoD's conclusions also call for the creation of an industrial policy to “inform current and future acquisition practices;” to attempt to diversify away from complete dependency on sources of supply in politically unstable countries who may cut off U.S. access, including “reengineering, expanded use of the National Defense Stockpile program, or qualification of new suppliers,” to work with allies on joint industrial base challenges; and to “modernize” the organic industrial base to ensure readiness. The Department of Energy, whose National Nuclear Security Agency handles the development of nuclear warheads, will propose establishing an “Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program to address manufacturing and industrial base risk within the energy and nuclear sectors” as part of its FY2020 budget request. And the Department of Labor will work to encourage STEM growth, as well as consider “potential incentives to recruit and retain workers to enter and/or stay in the industrial base, such as tuition reimbursement.” All three departments must provide an update 180 days from the issuance of the report. The Chinese Bogeyman While the report casts itself as part of the broader return of great power competition, it is impossible to miss that the authors view China as the industrial bogeyman. The words “China," “Chinese” or “Beijing” appear in the report 232 times; “Russia” appears only once, as part of a quote from another document — which also mentions China. The report is being released the same day that Vice President Mike Pence gave a keynote speech in Washington decrying what he called Chinese attempts to influence the American public, and just hours after Bloomberg issues a bombshell report that a Chinese company had managed to insert tiny, microscopic chips into hardware used by both the DoD and American intelligence services. “The Chinese Communist Party has also used an arsenal of policies inconsistent with free and fair trade, including tariffs, quotas, currency manipulation, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and industrial subsidies doled out like candy, to name a few,” Pence said in his speech. “These policies have built Beijing's manufacturing base, at the expense of its competitors — especially America. That China is attempting to infiltrate the defense industrial base is no surprise to those who have been tracking DoD's comments on the issue in the last several years, but the report sums it up thusly: “While multiple countries pursue policies to bolster their economies at the expense of America's manufacturing sector, none has targeted our industrial base as successfully as China.” “China represents a significant and growing risk to the supply of materials and technologies deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national security; a challenge shared by key allies such as Germany and Australia,” the report adds, singling out rare earth metals and critical energetic materials for munitions and missiles as areas of concern. “China's actions seriously threaten other capabilities, including machine tools; the production and processing of advanced materials like biomaterials, ceramics, and composites; and the production of printed circuit boards and semiconductors.” China is four times as large as its next closest competitor when it comes to exporting to the U.S. rare earth materials, used in lasers, radar, sonar, night vision systems, missile guidance, and jet engines, making Beijing a significant supplier of these capabilities needed for America's high-end defense capabilities. Single sourced, and disappearing While much of the specific weak points in the defense industrial base are not spelled out in the public-facing part of the report, the 140-page document does include a number of examples of weak spots in the defense industrial base, largely in the lower-tier suppliers who make pieces and parts that would ordinarily go unnoticed on a large military system. A senior administration official, speaking ahead of the report's release, cited ceramics, high performance aluminum and steel, titanium, tungsten and carbon fibers as some of the components the Pentagon is concerned about. The report offers further examples. For instance, it says there are only four America suppliers with the capability to manufacture large, complex, single pour aluminum and magnesium sand castings, needed to help produce American airpower. Those suppliers “face perpetual financial risk and experience bankruptcy threats and mergers mirroring the cyclicality of DoD acquisition,” per the report. Meanwhile, there is only one qualified source for the upper, intermediate, and sump housing for an unnamed heavy lift platform used by the Marines (potentially the CH-53 King Stallion) that recently went through bankruptcy proceedings. “Without a qualified source for these castings, the program will face delays, impeding the U.S. ability to field heavy lift support to Marine Corps expeditionary forces,” the report warns. A material called ASZM-TEDA1 impregnated carbon is used in 72 chemical, biological and nuclear filtration systems owned by the DoD, and there is only a single qualified source, the report notes. “The current sourcing arrangements cannot keep pace with demand. DoD is using Defense Production Act Title III authorities to establish an additional source of this critical material,” the report says. In yet another example, the study looked at the companies that make flare countermeasures for military aircraft. There are only two domestic suppliers for flares with “little incentive to invest in infrastructure,” and both suffered explosions at their production sites in recent years. “Both companies have experienced quality and delivery problems since the accidents. As program offices look to improve quality and cost, they are beginning to look offshore at more modern facilities, where there are fewer quality and safety concerns.” Hawk Carlisle, a former Air Force officer who now leads the National Defense Industrial Association, called the reporter's findings “sobering." “Recent efforts by Congress and the administration have been encouraging, but more must be done,” Carlisle said. “Streamlining the acquisition process, updating the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States guidelines, and reforming how we sell our systems to allies and partners have all been steps in the right direction.” Added Eric Fanning of the Aerospace Industries Association, "Guaranteeing the health of the American manufacturing and defense industrial base is a critical national security and economic priority as the United States combats today's threats and those we'll face tomorrow. We applaud the Administration's focus on these issues and look forward to working together to implement the assessment's recommendations with the same spirit of industry-government cooperation and engagement that led to today's report,” Both groups were part of 15 conversations the working group had with industry during the production of the report. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/04/white-house-warns-of-domestic-extinction-of-suppliers-in-industrial-base-report-and-dod-is-ready-to-help-with-cash