General Dynamics Electric Boat Awarded $698 million Contract Modification for Overhaul of USS Hartford

On the same subject

• 

  May 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Space Acquisition: Speed May Not Fix Problems, Critics Say

  "The answer isn't 'we've just gotta go fast'," said one critic. By THERESA HITCHENSon May 26, 2020 at 4:10 PM WASHINGTON: The latest version of the Air Force's long-overdue report to Congress on space acquisition reform fails to address a number of foundational questions, critics say, including: go fast to do what; who gets to decide the what; and who is accountable if things go pear shaped? DoD is asking Congress to cut legislative strings and approve special powers to streamline space acquisition programs worth billions — pushing the need for speed to ensure the US military's technical edge over China and Russia, as first reported by colleague Sandra Erwin. The proposed changes are focused mainly on ways to get the Space Force out from under current acquisition rules, both those imposed by Congress and internally by DoD regulations. They also are “mostly a rehashed list of things that every service has asked for since time immemorial,” one national security space veteran told Breaking D, with a virtual eye roll. Or in the words of the recently-released teaser for the upcoming Netflix comedy “Space Force”: “Your attitude seems to be: ‘Give us money and don't look'.” “The problem is, I think, it's asking for a lot of trust from Congress that in space in particular hasn't been necessarily warranted to date,” said Joshua Huminski, director of the National Security Space Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress. A space acquisition report, due to Congress on March 31, was delivered on May 20. Air Force acquisition head Will Roper called a press briefing last Friday to discuss it, only to abruptly cancel a couple hours later with no explanation. A congressional aide told Breaking D on Friday afternoon that they could not release the version of the report transmitted to Congress because it was not a final version; and an Air Force spokesperson later confirmed that — well after business hours on Friday evening and before the long Memorial Day weekend). So, it's not really the final version. The spokesperson said: “The Department of the Air Force continues to work with DoD and interagency partners to finalize the Space Force Alternative Acquisition System report. An initial version of the report was delivered to the Hill, but we anticipate delivering the final report to Congress soon.” As one space analyst notes wryly: “Not exactly a clean rollout.” The nine proposed reforms are required because “current space threats demand a shift to a system that more broadly delivers agile solutions to meet an ever-evolving technical baseline and integrate into an open architecture,” according to the current report language. Three of the recommendations will require legislative changes; one will require agreement from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Specifically, the nine recommendations address the following acquisition authorities for the Department of the Air Force and the Space Force: Unique Acquisition Category (ACAT) Thresholds, Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) Definition, and Milestone Decision Authority Delegation for Space Systems. “Efficient Space Procurement (ESP)” Codification for the DAF/USSF. USSF-Unique “New Start” Notification Procedures. Budget Line Item Restructure. Modified JCIDS [Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System that sets program requirements] Approach for Space Systems. New Policy Regarding Key Decision Point and Reporting Requirements for Development, Fielding, and Sustainment of Space Systems. “Useable End Item” Determination Authority. Separate USSF Topline Budget. USSF-Unique Head of Contracting Activity (HCA). As an example of bending the current DoD rules for the Space Force, the “Budget Line Restructure” asks Congress for authority to move money around by combining individual programs within in a large “portfolio” of similar efforts — an effort unlikely to win congressional approval, if past attempts are a guide. Numerous critics noted it goes directly against the intent of Congress when it mandated in 2016 that DoD develop a Major Force Program to allow better tracking of both the macro military space budget and individual projects from year-to-year via a specific, standardized “program element number” in budget documentation. Further, as Breaking D readers know, the report punts on one of the key mandates included in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): to create a Space Acquisition Executive separate from the Air Force acquisition authority, a position now held by Roper. The NDAA requires that the Air Force appoint a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration. That person, the act said, “will “synchronize with the Air Force Service Acquisition Executive on all space system efforts, and take on Service Acquisition Executive responsibilities for space systems and programs effective on October 1, 2022.” The SAE is to oversee the Space and Missile Systems Center, the Space Rapid Capabilities Office (SpRCO), and the Space Development Agency (SDA) — all of which currently have separate acquisition authorities and lines of oversight. Roper has fought tooth and nail against a fully separate SAE since it was proposed by Congress, according to numerous DoD sources even threatening to resign if it is created outside his purview. Sources close to the debate say that Gen. Jay Raymond, who currently is double hatted as head of the Space Force and Space Command, also does not want to see a change in the status quo that would put another layer of acquisition oversight in the mix. Thus, the current version of the draft report simply states that Roper will hold SAE authority for now. This, several sources said, in reality is a place holder signaling that DoD intends to recommend in future that Congress essentially ditch the idea. “We want to ignore your direction on the separate SAE [Space Acquisition Executive] – thanks, but we know better,” the former national security space official summed up. “And it ain't a signal – it's a shot across the bow.” “On face value, I think it does seem to suggest they are trying to avoid the separate Space Acquisition Executive, which when combined with the bucketing of money is unlikely to be well received by Congress,” Huminski said. “Congress is going to want some balance here, at least I think,” he added. “If the Space Force wants the authority to move money around within the portfolios, they are going to need to provide some measure of confidence to Congress that it is being done in an efficient and transparent manner, which could be the SAE—at least someone accountable for those money moves.” Failure to restructure the space acquisition organization, critics point out, leaves open the critical question of how DoD plans to fix the problem of lack of coordination with the Army and Navy on user equipment, for which they have acquisition authority. (We're looking at you, GPS III.) While the Space Force in the near term will comprise only Air Force personnel either seconded or transferred, the expectation is that eventually it will include Army and Navy personnel as well. A number of critics further charge that the requested changes do not sufficiently address the fact that previous space program cost overruns and schedule delays can be attributed to lack of coherent, coordinated and disciplined management at the program level within Space and Missile Systems Center itself, not due to outside factors. “All of the changes they've asked for are external to the Space Force,” said one former DoD official, rather than taking a hard look at past program management. “Instead it's: ‘Congress has to change; Ellen Lord [DoD acquisition czar] has to change; the JROC [Joint Requirements Oversight Council] has to change.” “The answer isn't ‘we've just gotta go fast',” the official added. “One of the biggest challenges is the proverbial acquisitions rubber meeting the road—unless the Space Force changes what they are buying, changing how they buy it may not matter,” Huminski explained. “If the same architectures and same vehicles and same capabilities are bought, just faster, what was the point of changing anything at all?” DoD sources defend the proposal, saying that Congress asked for, and expected to receive, ‘bold recommendations' on how to change the current space acquisition system. Noting that there are many conflicting pressures, one DoD source said that concerns about transparency and who does what exactly have been overtaken by concerns that the Space Force “be empowered to go fast, innovate, and achieve the space dominance wanted by POTUS.” Another government official keeping tabs on the issue said sympathetically that in some ways, “they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.” While some in Congress likely will be annoyed by the recommendations push to get out from under current regulations, the source said, others would have complained loudly if DoD failed to move from the status quo. Spokespeople for a number of key House and Senate members involved in defense oversight did not respond to requests for comment. However, DoD sources and several analysts with close Hill ties said Congress is most likely to be concerned by the recommendations that infringe upon Congress's own powers. For example, members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are almost certain to protest the recommendation that assumes approval if Congress doesn't respond to “New Start” notifications within 30 days. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/space-acquisition-speed-may-not-fix-problems-critics-say

• 

  August 18, 2024 | International, Aerospace

  HENSOLDT receives further fire control sight order for the German Armed Forces

  HENSOLDT has received a further order for the delivery of "Dynahawk" fire control sights (FLV). The customer is the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw).

• 

  February 26, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Insufficient missile defense funding would leave Americans vulnerable

  The U.S. Missile Defense Agency submitted its report on unfunded priorities to Congress last week, which includes a number of priorities worth more than $1.1 billion. The list demonstrates the tangible consequences of a flat Pentagon budget request and provides a road map for lawmakers to ensure that the U.S. homeland and America's forward-deployed troops have sufficient missile defense protection. The Trump administration requested $705.4 billion for the Department of Defense for fiscal 2021, a level that fails to keep pace with inflation. Accordingly, the DoD is only requesting $9.2 billion for FY21 for the MDA — more than an 11 percent reduction from the FY20 enacted amount of $10.4 billion. The National Defense Authorization Act requires the MDA to submit a list to Congress of items not included in the administration's budget request but that are “necessary to fulfill a requirement associated with an operational or contingency plan of a combatant command or other validated requirement.” The list includes programs that combatant commanders genuinely need and would have included if additional resources were available. The MDA's top unfunded priority for FY21 is $231 million for 10 additional Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missiles. The SM-3 IIA missile is designed to intercept medium- and intermediate-range missiles. This additional purchase would bring the total number to 24 missiles a year, which MDA calls the “maximum sustainable production rate per year without further investment.” In addition to the SM-3 IIA's vital existing capabilities against medium- and intermediate-range missiles, the DoD believes that the missile could potentially be adapted to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. In response to a mandate in the NDAA, the MDA plans to conduct a flight test this spring, known as FTM-44, to determine whether an SM-3 IIA could intercept an ICBM. If successful, the SM-3 IIA could then provide an additional and complementary layer of protection for the U.S. homeland against a limited ICBM attack from an adversary such as North Korea. Consequently, keeping the SM-3 IIA production line at full speed would enable the U.S. to meet combatant commander requirements for medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missile defense. And if the test this spring is successful, optimized ongoing production would also allow the DoD to more quickly field SM-3 IIAs for homeland defense against ICBMs. The MDA's second- and third-highest unfunded priorities relate to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. These include $319 million to procure an eighth THAAD battery for the United States and $30 million to procure trucks required to support THAAD systems. The THAAD is a rapidly deployable land-based missile defense system designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles during their terminal (or final) phase of flight. Since the program was initiated, the MDA reports, THAAD has completed 15 successful intercepts in 15 attempts. THAAD uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy an incoming warhead. It is effective against short-, medium- and some intermediate-range ballistic missile threats. The DoD can transport the THAAD system by air, land or sea. Iran's January ballistic missile attack on U.S. service members at two bases in Iraq highlighted the lack of sufficient U.S. ballistic missile defense capacity. With no U.S. ballistic missile interceptors in range, U.S. forces could only watch and wait for impact. Had a THAAD system been deployed in the region, the U.S. could have intercepted the Iranian ballistic missiles and better protected U.S. troops. Acquiring an eighth THAAD battery makes not only operational sense, but also financial sense. Saudi Arabia is purchasing a large quantity of THAAD systems. A U.S. and Saudi “synchronized” purchase would enable the U.S. to benefit from the associated economies of scale. The fourth priority on MDA's unfunded list is $39 million to “develop technology and advanced command and control to integrate networked sensors to detect and track advanced cruise missile threats.” As Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, the commander of Northern Command, highlighted in congressional testimony on Feb. 13, the U.S. homeland remains incredibly vulnerable to a cruise missile attack. He testified that “advanced cruise missiles now carried by Russian aircraft and submarines present a growing challenge to our current sensor networks and have the range and accuracy to strike military and civilian targets throughout the United States and Canada.” O'Shaughnessy argued that investments in cruise missile defense capabilities “are necessary to defend our vital facilities and infrastructure, preserve our national ability to project power abroad, and help to safeguard our citizens and vital institutions.” That is exactly what MDA's unfunded priority would do, and the burden of proof should be on those who argue that it should not be funded. A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to protect the American people. The MDA's report on unfunded priorities to Congress demonstrates that the agency requires additional funding from Congress to fulfill this important responsibility. Bradley Bowman is the senior director for the Center on Military and Political Power with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/25/insufficient-missile-defense-funding-would-leave-americans-vulnerable/