Following industry trend, Airbus dives into data

On the same subject

• 

  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/

• 

  February 15, 2024 | International, Land

  IperionX expands US titanium production

• 

  July 10, 2018 | International, Land

  Army Anti-Aircraft Stryker Can Kill Tanks Too

  By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. With its eyes firmly on Russia, the US Army is racing to field 8×8 Strykers with an array of weapons that can down enemy aircraft — from drones to helicopters to jets — and incidentally make enemy tanks think twice. The first prototypes will be delivered next year, with up to 144 (four battalions) by 2022, although the contract details are still being negotiated. With the IM-SHORAD (Initial Maneuver Short Range Air Defense) Stryker, “you'll have more combat power, more lethality, than the Bradley fighting vehicle,” says Ed House, the retired Army infantry colonel who runs the program for Leonardo DRS. Now, before everyone gets too excited, this doesn't mean the new Stryker is a substitute for the Bradley as an infantry assault vehicle. The Stryker's got lighter armor, and wheels instead of tracks, so it can't handle all the threats or terrain a Bradley can. Plus, this variant's interior volume will be largely filled with spare missiles, leaving little room to carry troops. But it does raise intriguing tactical possibilities for IM-SHORAD Strykers to take up positions right behind the frontline forces — ideally on hills with good fields of fire — to provide both air defense and long-range shots against enemy armor. It's similar to how the German's famous 88mm high-velocity cannon of World War II did double duty as flak gun and tank killer. Rolling Arsenal Put together by Leonardo DRS and then installed on the Stryker by the vehicle's original manufacturer, General Dynamics Land Systems, the package includes an intimidating arsenal of weapon — and the flexibility to add more: Two Hellfire missiles, capable of hitting both air and ground targets. Hellfire has not only a larger warhead than the Army's standard Stinger anti-aircraft missile (18-20 pounds vs. 6.6) but a long range than the TOW anti-tank missiles on its M2 Bradleys and ATGM Strykers (5 miles vs. at most 2.8). Four Stinger missiles for less well-armored aircraft targets, in a new quad launcher put together by Raytheon. A 30mm automatic cannon, an upgraded model (M230LF) of the gun on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter and considerably more powerful than the Bradley's 25 mm. A standard 7.62mm machinegun as backup and to kill targets that don't merit a 30 mm round, such as slow-moving drones and infantry in the open. An electronic warfare package to jam drones' control links without having to shoot them. A Rada multi-mission radar to track both air and ground targets. What's more, the weapons are all mounted on a multipurpose unmanned turret, Moog's Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform (RIwP, pronounced “rip”), which House said could take a wide range of alternative layouts as technology, tactics, and threats evolve. It could also be adapted to other vehicles, with Leonardo having tried a counter-drone version on an M-ATV truck. “It takes us about four hours to put the RIwP turret on an M-ATV,” House told me. While they've haven't put one on a Stryker yet, once General Dynamics preps a Stryker — which includes cutting the appropriate hole in the top armor — “it won't be any harder to mount it on the Stryker.” The loaded turret weighs less than the TOW missile turret already installed on the Stryker's anti-tank variant, he said. (By contrast, a rival proposal from General Dynamics and Boeing involved a much larger turret that would have required cutting off the back half of the Stryker's cargo bay). With the turret installed and loaded, the vehicle has two Hellfires and four Stingers ready to fire and more would be carried in the hull. The three-man crew should be able reload the Stingers and the 30mm without leaving the vehicle, although they'd be partially exposed in an open hatch. The Hellfires, however, are simply too big and heavy to fit through the hatches, so the crew would have to get out and clamber on top of the vehicle to reload those. That's an awkward operation under fire and another reason the IM-SHORAD Stryker shouldn't hang out in range of enemy machineguns alongside the Bradleys. If fewer or no reloads are needed for a particular mission, House said, some or all of the Stryker's cargo/passenger area would be available for supplies or troops. But with Short-Range Air Defense identified as one of the Army's glaring shortfallsagainst a modern adversary like Russia or China, the IM-SHORAD Stryker probably won't have much time for odd jobs. Rushing vs. Russia The Army is rushing to fill multiple gaps in Europe, not just air defense. It's developing a new scout helicopter and adding Trophy Active Protection Systems(APS) to its M1 Abrams heavy tanks to protect them from Russian anti-tank missiles. But while armored brigades of M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys regularly deploy to Europe, the heaviest force stationed there permanently is mounted on Strykers. So the Army is rushing to upgun these relatively lightweight armored vehicles with anti-armor weapons from 30 mm cannon to Javelin anti-tank missiles, as well as the effectively dual-purpose IM-SHORAD package. How fast is that schedule? September 2017: The Army conducts a SHORAD “shoot off” of potential systems. February 2018: Army issues a Directed Requirement for what they call an “initial material solution” for SHORAD. April: The Army holds an industry day with interested companies. May: An Army panel evaluates companies' White Paper proposals and selects Leonardo DRS for the weapons, turret, and electronics (the Mission Equipment Package); Raytheon for the upgraded Stinger Launcher (which the government then provides to Leonardo); and General Dynamics to integrate everything on the Stryker. August 31: The Army's target date to award contracts. Mid-2019 (3Q FY19): First prototype to be delivered. 2020: First IM-SHORAD battery deployed. 2022: Up to four IM-SHORAD battalions fielded. At this point the Army may either keep upgrading IM-SHORAD — note it's called the “initial” solution, not the “interim” one as is sometimes reported — or choose another system. Different missiles, improved electronic warfare, and entirely new weapons such as lasers are all options, with 50 kilowatt lasers planned for 2023. https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/