August 10, 2020 | International, Land

Government watchdog warns of cost and technical risk for next-gen combat vehicle effort

WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office is warning the Army its approach to cost estimates and technical development for its Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program is risky and should be amended, according to an August 6 report.

The Army has already struggled to get the OMFV program, intended to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, off the ground, canceling its previous solicitation to compete after receiving just one bid from General Dynamics Land Systems last fall.

And GAO, in its report, is concerned that the service's newest attempt to get after delivering an OMFV comes with risk because the program documentation “does not clearly communicate the uncertainty associated with projected costs” and limits the program's “ability to gather the knowledge to effectively mitigate risk associated with system design maturity.”

For one, the Army has come up with a singular cost estimate for the life-cycle of the program rather than a range of potential costs that takes uncertainty into account, according to the report.

The OMFV program cost estimate, the report notes, is roughly $46 billion in fiscal 2019 dollars.

“Our past work has determined that a point estimate alone is insufficient for managers to make informed decisions about the cost of a program,” the GAO writes. “For informed decisions, the cost estimate must reflect a degree of uncertainty, typically achieved through an uncertainty analysis, so that level of confidence can be given about the estimate.”

For example, the OMFV program will be optionally manned, “which adds complexity and unknowns to the design as no vehicle like this currently exists in the Army's ground vehicle fleet,” the GAO said. “But the uncertainty surrounding this complex design is not reflected in the point estimate.”

And because of this “decision makers are left making choices without a clear understanding of the impact on costs and may not be able to accurately budget for the program,” the report states.

The constrained development schedule for OMFV is also a cause for concern as it inevitably drives risk into the program. GAO notes the Army had laid out, in its previous solicitation, a plan to design and demonstrate an OMFV prototype in three years and three months, but has since spread the schedule out a bit more with the relaunch of the program and now plans to complete system development and prototype demonstration in “close to” five years.

The new solicitation also lays out a five-phase effort that will allow the Army to reassess the process at certain checkpoints throughout development, according to the report. The GAO also found promise in the Army's plan to use a modular open systems architecture to incorporate incremental upgrades.

In the Army's previous plan for OMFV it also planned to use a mix of existing and new technologies but, the GAO report states, the program did not include plans to complete an independent technology readiness assessment until it was approaching a production decision.

According to the Office of the Under Secretary for Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in a report to Congress, “the least mature technology for OMFV had only been demonstrated at the component level in a laboratory environment,” the report notes, adding that the level of technology maturity would require “significant” additional development before it could be added to a weapon system.

“The Army is maturing, or has plans to mature, individual technologies to a level lower than the threshold recommended by leading practices before beginning system development,” the report says. “This creates a danger of limited insight into key technology risks.”

Critical technologies, GAO states, should be demonstrated in “an operational or realistic environment — not simply in a relevant environment — prior to their incorporation into a system design to ensure that they work as intended for the end-user.”

The GAO adds, based on past experience, that without proving out technology at that level, the Army risks the possibility that new capabilities won't work as planned and will require further maturation, which results in schedule slips and rising costs.

In the previous competition, OMFV didn't hold a systems engineering design review before beginning system development and the Army canceled the solicitation “in part due to the conclusion that contractors could not complete a system design that met requirements within the given schedule,” the report notes, which “illustrates the risk of beginning system development without conducting a systems engineering design review.”

Program officials told the GAO that the program office and requirements developers “may have misjudged the ability of contractors to integrate the desired technology within the given schedule.”

The GAO recommends the Army secretary direct the OMFV program office to include a range of cost estimates to support a range of possible outcomes as well as conduct systems engineering reviews at key decision points.

The report also lays out similar findings on the Mobile Protected Firepower program, which is heading into competitive prototype testing this summer. General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems are competing to build the new light tank for Army infantry.

The GAO recommended the Army should ensure the MPF program also include a range of cost estimates that account for uncertainty.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/08/06/government-watchdog-warns-of-cost-and-technical-risk-for-next-gen-combat-vehicle-effort/

On the same subject

September 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

Did the US Marine Corps give up on a big ship-based surveillance drone too soon?
David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps both say they need expanded surveillance capabilities for a potential fight with China, but the Marines have cut bait on a big, ship-based system that some analysts say would make a big difference for both services. The Chief of Naval Operations' air warfare lead said earlier this month that every carrier strike group commander needs more surveillance, and he wants to find a way to get more pure intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drones flying off the flight decks of Navy ships as soon as possible. That aligns with the Marine Corps' goals of having more ISR and network connectivity resident in the amphibious ready group/Marine expeditionary unit construct, as it is in the carrier strike group with the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. But with the Marine Corps moving away from a large unmanned platform known as the “Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Expeditionary,” it's unclear if the Navy and Marine Corps will be able to find common ground on the way forward. When asked if the Navy was moving toward more organic ISR on Navy flight decks, Air Warfare Director Rear Adm. Gregory Harris told the virtual audience at the annual Tailhook symposium that he was trying to find alignment with the Marine Corps' need for a medium-altitude, long endurance drone system. “Every strike group wants to know more and more and more about his battlespace,” Harris said. "As we look at future vertical lift and the Marine Corps looks at their MUX or Medium Altitude Long Endurance system, [we're talking] about how we can find synergy between the Marine Corps and the Navy's pieces of the MUX/MALE program and our future vertical life (unmanned portion) — we want to bring that as far left as we possibly can in terms of synergy between the Navy and Marine Corps. “But I promise you there is not a strike group commander or fleet commander that can get enough ISR out there. And that aspect, from a distributed maritime operations standpoint, what we can bring from the strike group whether it comes off a carrier, a DDG or the future frigate or comes off Triton, that is fantastic.” The Marines were examining a tilt-rotor drone that could take off from from a DDG or a big-deck amphibious ship, but Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder told USNI News in March that the Marines couldn't get the kind of range and endurance they wanted from a tilt-rotor done while packing all the power and cooling it needed for high-end communications and early warning systems. “What we discovered with the MUX program is that it's going to require a family of systems. The initial requirement had a long list of very critical requirements, but when we did the analysis and tried to fit it inside one air vehicle,” they realized they had competing needs, Rudder told USNI. Analysts are divided on whether that's the right idea. Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant with The FerryBridge Group, said the Marines gave up too early on the concept, and that it works against the Marine's stated goal of becoming an arm of naval power. “The Marine Corps wishes to go forward fast, and that is a land-based, medium-altitude, long-endurance UAV solution,” McGrath said. “I think it's suboptimal. I think it is a blow to this whole concept of integrated American naval power.” Packing all that capability into a land-based system tethers the capability to basing rights agreements. But another consideration is that capability will be at the mercy of the theater commander, which means the Marines may get less use out of them than they anticipate. “I believe the Marines will find that those assets will be a lot more difficult to keep control of than they think they will be with respect to tasking once they are in theater.” McGrath said. "There will be customers for those ISR assets that will greatly exceed the tactical level of the requirement. “I think the Marines are making a mistake not working closely with the Navy to come up with an organic, ship-based MALE solution. All this does is push the horizon for such a necessary component of the ISR-T grid for the Western Pacific even further into the future. And all for a suboptimal, short-term approach to trying to solve its problems, and I think they are going to find that it will not solve their problems.” But the Marines are nothing if not aggressive, and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger has clearly prioritized speed in his quest to reshape the service. Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and analyst with The Heritage Foundation thinks that's the right approach. “I think they have to go separate paths,” Wood said when asked about the Marines' embrace of land-based air. "I think the more you combine multi-service efforts into a single program, it gets bogged down by all the competing requirements. “The expense goes up, the ability to deliver capability ends up being less than was originally hoped for. And then these competing, or even conflicting requirements clash and it mucks up the whole thing.” Breaking the MUX program into multiple systems has the advantage of spreading out capabilities, and relying on platforms already in production will speed everything along, Wood said. “I'm a huge advocate of prototyping and trying multiple paths, and that costs a bit of money to do that, but you end up with a variety of platforms, all with unique contributions to the overall capability set,” he said. “The Navy has a habit of loading on additional requirements. They look for very robust, long-lifespan capabilities. And of course, the expense and complexity go up. Manufacturing time goes up. There is a delay in getting a capability in the fleet. I like the Marine Corps' aggressive posture: There is a sense of urgency.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/21/did-the-us-marine-corps-give-up-on-a-big-ship-based-surveillance-drone-too-so
May 22, 2019 | International, Aerospace

Une guerre commerciale affecterait tous les avionneurs, dit Airbus
LONDRES, 16 mai (Reuters) - Une nouvelle escalade des tensions commerciales affecterait les entreprises du secteur aéronautique dans leur ensemble, y compris Airbus, concurrent de Boeing, a prévenu jeudi le président exécutif de l'avionneur européen. Dans le cadre du litige de près de 15 ans auprès de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) qui oppose les Etats-Unis et l'Europe sur les subventions à l'industrie aéronautique, les deux parties menacent d'imposer à chacun des milliards de dollars de droits de douane. “Les tensions commerciales que nous constatons, nous pensons qu'elles sont des tensions perdantes-perdantes”, a déclaré Guillaume Faury à la presse lors d'une visite à Londres. Boeing a exhorté mercredi le gouvernement américain de limiter les représailles exercées sur les avions européens afin de pas nuire aux équipementiers américains. Mais Guillaume Faury juge impossible pour les entreprises concernées de contenir les retombées liées à la détérioration du climat commercial international, qui a également conduit à une guerre douanière entre les Etats-Unis et la Chine. “Ces tensions, et la situation commerciale, ne sont d'aucune aide pour aucun des acteurs de l'aérospatiale”, a-t-il déclaré. “Nous ne pensons pas que nous en perdrons plus que les autres dans cette situation, mais nous pensons que cela devrait être résolu d'une manière ou d'une autre afin que les entreprises mondialisées comme dans le secteur de l'aviation puissent continuer à se développer”, a-t-il ajouté. Guillaume Faury a par ailleurs de nouveau mis en garde sur l'impact de la sortie de la Grande-Bretagne de l'Union européenne, tout en étant moins alarmiste que son prédécesseur, Tom Enders, qui avait menacé de retirer le groupe du Royaume-Uni. Airbus, qui produit des ailes d'avion en Grande-Bretagne et emploie 14.000 personnes dans tout le pays, profite du retard pris dans le Brexit pour “se préparer à tous les scénarios”, a déclaré Guillaume Faury, ajoutant qu'un Brexit sans accord est toujours possible, même si cela est moins probable. “Les choses n'ont fondamentalement pas changé, et par conséquent elles s'aggravent. Ce manque persistant de clarté est (...) une distraction”, a-t-il déclaré. “Le Royaume-Uni fait vraiment partie de notre écosystème. Nos usines et nos sites au Royaume-Uni sont très compétitifs. Nous aimerions que cela continue, quoi qu'il arrive.” MISES EN GARDE Guillaume Faury a également mis en garde contre des poursuites judiciaires contre l'Allemagne, Berlin ayant décidé en mars de prolonger de six mois l'arrêt des ventes d'armes à l'Arabie saoudite à la suite du meurtre du journaliste et opposant saoudien Jamal Khashoggi. Cette décision remet en cause des milliards d'euros de contrats militaires, dont une commande de 10 milliards de livres (13,27 milliards de dollars) pour la vente de 48 Eurofighter Typhoon à Ryad, via un consortium dirigé par BAE Systems et comprenant l'Allemagne, Airbus et le motoriste MTU Aero Engines . “Il est très important de clarifier les règles et de comprendre comment les partenaires comprennent qu'ils peuvent faire confiance à l'Allemagne en tant que partenaire”, a déclaré Guillaume Faury. Ce commentaire survient alors que la France et l'Allemagne planchent sur un nouvel avion de combat dans lequel Airbus est le partenaire industriel du côté allemand. (Claude Chendjou pour le service français, édité par Benoît Van Overstraeten) https://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt/idFRL5N22S4HE
August 29, 2019 | International, Land

US Army picks 3 teams to build Infantry Squad Vehicle prototypes
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has picked an Oshkosh Defense and Flyer Defense LLC team, an SAIC and Polaris team, and GM Defense to competitively build Infantry Squad Vehicles intended to provide ground mobility for infantry brigade combat teams. Each industrial choice was awarded an OTA, or other transaction authority, task assignment under the National Advanced Mobility Consortium to deliver and test two prototypes each, said Steve Herrick, ground mobility vehicle product lead with the Army's Program Executive Office Combat Support & Combat Service Support, in a statement sent to Defense News. OTA is a congressionally authorized contracting mechanism meant to expedite prototyping efforts. The three received $1 million to build the vehicles and it's expected that the Army will take delivery of the prototypes on Nov. 13 at Aberdeen Test Center, Maryland. The prototypes will be evaluated in various performance, operational and characteristics tests through the end of the year and will then be transported to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January to be assessed by soldiers, Herrick said. Each industrial choice is expected to simultaneously deliver information to the Army on price, production and logistics. The Army will choose one vehicle for production in the second quarter of fiscal 2020 based on soldier feedback and response to a formal request for proposals leading to production. The Army Requirements Oversight Council approved an Army procurement object for 649 Infantry Squad Vehicles with an objective requirement of 2,065 ISVs in February. The ISV is intended to supplement and potentially replace vehicles the Army procured as version 1.1 of the Ground Mobility Vehicle. The ISV “is additive” to infantry brigade combat teams “and currently not planned as a replacement for current vehicles in the formation,” according to Herrick. Oshkosh and Flyer, in a way, represent the incumbent, as Flyer produced the GMV 1.1. vehicle currently fielded. Flyer Defense “is the design authority” and will lead the team in building the prototypes, according to a statement from the team. GM Defense's ISV is based on its Chevrolet Colorado midsize truck and its ZR2 and ZR2 Bison variants, according to a company statement, “supplemented with both custom and commercially available parts proven by Chevy performance engineering in more than 10,000 miles of punishing off-road development and desert racing in the Best of the Desert Racing series.” The SAIC-Polaris team is submitting the DAGOR vehicle, which “delivers off-road mobility while meeting the squad's payload demands, all within the weight and size restrictions that maximize tactical air transportability,” according to Jed Leonard, vice president of Polaris Government and Defense. The DAGOR ISV “will leverage and further enhance the already proven, production-ready solution that has been tested, certified and fielded to operational units in the U.S. Military and its Allies since 2015,” Leonard added. The prototype competition is a significant step toward a solution after years of uncertainty; the Army seemed geared toward holding a rapid competition to buy a GMV in 2016, but the plan was delayed without much explanation in favor of buying an interim vehicle already in use by special operations forces. Buying the GMV was a top priority following the fall 2015 release of the Army's Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy, which called for such a vehicle in future and current operations. But when a competition never materialized, rumors swirled that the Army might buy more of U.S. Special Operations Command's GMVs — General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems' Flyer 72 — even after the service had spent several years testing a wide variety of commercial off-the-shelf options. The Army bought quantities of the command's vehicle for five airborne infantry brigade combat teams. Congress spurred the effort in its FY18 defense policy bill, mandating the Army hold a competition and move forward with a program. PEO CS&CSS' product lead for the GMV stated on its website that the Army planned to pursue a competition for the GMV — calling it an ISV — as a formal program of record late last year. The office also released a market survey asking for a vehicle that provides mobility for a nine-soldier infantry squad as well as associated equipment to “move around the close battle area.” The vehicle should be lightweight, highly mobile and transportable “by all means” to include CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopters, UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters, and via low-velocity airdrop. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/08/28/us-army-picks-3-teams-to-build-infantry-squad-vehicle-prototypes

All news