Hanwha Aerospace Awarded $2.4 Billion by Australia for 129 Infantry Fighting Vehicles

On the same subject

• 

  June 30, 2022 | International, Aerospace

  Lockheed Martin remporte un contrat de 2,28 milliards de dollars pour des Black Hawk

• 

  May 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

  Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - May 6, 2019

  AIR FORCE Vital Link Inc., Sealy, Texas, has been awarded a $228,843,057 indefinite-delivery requirements contract for the sustainment of Air Force noise suppressors. This contract provides for the repair, refurbishment and relocation of noise suppressors. Work will be performed at Air Force locations worldwide, and is expected to be complete by Nov. 5, 2029. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and one offer was received. No funds are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity (FA8534-19-D-0003). The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $35,800,000 delivery order for Radar Modernization Program (RMP) Common Configuration General Purpose Processors (GPP3) and Waveform Generators (WFG). This contract provides for 57 GPP3s and 11 WFGs to ensure a common configuration of the APG-82(v)1 radar, as well as 14 spares. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri, and is expected to be complete by Oct. 31, 2023. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2019 procurement funds in the amount of $17,686,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Fighter/Bomber Directorate, F-15 Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8634-19-F-0009). Metis Solutions LLC, Arlington, Virginia, has been awarded a $10,301,762 fixed-price level-of-effort contract for financial services. This contract provides for counter-threat finance services to U.S. Central Command, U.S. Africa Command, and the U.S. European Command areas of responsibility. Work will be performed in several locations worldwide, and is expected to be complete by Oct. 20, 2019. This award is the result of a non‐competitive bridge acquisition and one offer was received. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the full amount are being obligated at the time of award. Headquarters Air Combat Command, Acquisition Management and Integration Center, Joint Base Langley‐Eustis, Virginia, is the contracting activity (FA4890‐19‐C-A007). (Awarded March 20, 2019) CORRECTION: The contract announced on May 2, 2019, for Engility Corp., Andover, Massachusetts (FA8650-19-C-6024), for research and development, included an incorrect award amount. The correct award amount is $57,296,527. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Shore Terminals LLC, doing business as NuStar, San Antonio, Texas, has been awarded a $227,733,110 firm-fixed-price contract to receive, store and ship various types of jet fuel. This was a competitive acquisition with one offer received. This is a four-year base contract with one five-year option period. Locations of performance are Texas and California, with a May 6, 2023, performance competition date. Using customers are Navy and Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2023 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (SPE603-19-C-5006). Point Blank Enterprises, Pompano Beach, Florida, has been awarded a maximum $92,881,740 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for enhanced small arms protective inserts. This contract was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a one-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Florida, with a March 31, 2021, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2020 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE1C1-19-D-1154). CORRECTION: The contract announced on May 2, 2019, for Raytheon Co., McKinney, Texas, was announced with an incorrect delivery order number and incorrect basic ordering agreement number. The correct delivery order number is SPRPA1-19-F-CB01 and correct basic ordering agreement number is SPRPA1-19-G-CB01. ARMY Eagle Eye - Enviroworks JV,* Anchorage, Alaska (W9128F-19-D-0034); Ahtna-CDM JV,* Irvine, California (W9128F-19-D-0035); IE- Weston Federal Services JVB LLC,* Pasco, Washington (W9128F-19-D-0036); and Relyant Global LLC,* Maryville, Tennessee (W9128F-19-D-0037), will compete for each order of the $95,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for rapid disaster infrastructure response. Bids were solicited via the internet with 19 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 5, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity. Cray Inc., Seattle, Washington, was awarded a $22,549,000 firm-fixed-price contract for Department of Defense High Performance Computing Modernization Program's Technology Insertion. Four bids were solicited with four bids received. Work will be performed in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 5, 2025. Fiscal 2018 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $22,549,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W912DY-19-F-0296). Cray Inc., Seattle, Washington, was awarded a $14,549,000 firm-fixed-price contract for Department of Defense High Performance Computing Modernization Program's Technology Insertion. Four bids were solicited with two bids received. Work will be performed in Vicksburg, Mississippi, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 5, 2025. Fiscal 2018 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $14,549,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W912DY-19-F-0298). AAI Corp., doing business as Textron Systems, Hunt Valley, Maryland, was awarded an $8,928,378 cost-plus-fixed-fee Foreign Military Sales (Australia) contract for logistics support. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 7, 2020. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-19-F-0407). U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND n~Ask Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, was awarded a $7,816,490 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (H92401-19-C-0014) for demonstration of a prototype, modular intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance small-satellite in support of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Fiscal 2019 research and development funds in the amount of $2,000,000 were obligated at time of award. The work will be performed primarily at the n~Ask Colorado facility. The period of performance is scheduled to run through September 2020. USSOCOM headquarters, Tampa, Florida, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1838303/source/GovDelivery/

• 

  August 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Potential defense budget cuts demand a new calculus

  By: Lt. Gen. David Deptula (ret.) and Douglas A. Birkey With the U.S. election around the corner and the economic impact of COVID-19 mounting, calls for defense spending cuts are on the rise. The practicality of reductions is questionable given the scale and scope of the threat environment, the reality that key elements of the military are decaying, and that defense jobs represent one bright spot in an otherwise bleak economy. If cuts are coming, it is crucial to execute them in a fashion that prioritizes the most effective, efficient and valuable capabilities within the Department of Defense. This requires a new approach to assessing weapon systems' value. Defense programs are traditionally measured in a service-centric fashion based primarily upon two metrics: unit cost, and individual operating and support costs. Think about this in the context of buying a car and expenses associated with gas and maintenance. However, not all vehicles are created equal, with a compact car far different than a large SUV. Relative capabilities are essential when understanding how to best meet mission goals effectively and efficiently. To this point, when it comes to military systems, a much more relevant determination of merit is “cost per effect” — measuring the expense associated with achieving desired mission results. These sorts of comparisons are far from theoretical. On the first night of Desert Storm, it took 41 non-stealth aircraft to hit one target. At the same time, 20 F-117 stealth fighters struck 28 separate targets. Without the protection afforded by stealth, it took a large airborne team to protect the eight bomb-carrying aircraft striking one target. This gets to the crux of the cost-effectiveness challenge. Even though the non-stealth aircraft each cost less from an individual unit aircraft perspective, the F-117s yielded far more mission results at less risk for far less enterprise cost. However, during the last few budget downturns, decision-makers too often cut weapon systems that appeared “expensive” on a spreadsheet but actually delivered far greater effects for less cost. This year saw the Air Force seeking to retire 17 of its B-1 bombers even though a single B-1 can deliver as much or more ordnance than an entire aircraft carrier air wing, depending on the operational realities of range and payload. Production lines for the B-2 and F-22 — respectively the most advanced and capable bomber and fighter ever built — were terminated well before their validated military requirement was filled. Cost-per-effect analysis would have yielded very different determinations. These decisions continue to have very significant consequences. The security environment today is much more dangerous than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and U.S. forces are stretched thin. Smart investments are essential to yield necessary mission results. The U.S. military no longer has the capacity to bludgeon its way to victory through mass as it did in World War II. This is exactly why military leaders are embracing the need to harness information in their future war-fighting construct. Joint All-Domain Command and Control centers around understanding the battlespace in a real-time fashion to seek favorable pathways to achieve mission objectives, minimize the dangers posed by enemy threats and collaboratively team weapon systems to yield enhanced results. This is an incredibly smart approach. However, it is also wholly incongruous, with analysis centered around unit cost and individual operating expenses. If victory is going to be secured through the sum of parts, then we need to stop focusing on unilateral analysis absent broader context. Cost per effect can be applied to any mission area — the measurement points simply need to be tailored to relevant data sets. Accordingly, if we look at high-end air superiority and strike missions, it is important to consider the ability to net results in a precise fashion. This is simple — not only does “one bomb or missile, one target” save money, but it also frees up forces to execute other tasks. It is also important to consider survivability. Large, self-protecting, non-stealth strike packages akin to the Desert Storm example are incredibly expensive. Replacing a plane and pilot is not cheap. Additionally, losses reduce the force employment options available to commanders. Fifth-generation technology attributes are also crucial — the combination of stealth, sensors, processing power, fusion engines, and real-time command-and-control links to penetrate defended adversary regions and understand how best to attain desired effects, while minimizing vulnerability. Finally, range and payload are also very important — a single aircraft able to fly farther and carry more missiles or bombs drives effectiveness and efficiency. Assessing these attributes — all of which are measurable — validate precisely why aircraft like the F-35 and B-21 are so important. Nor should these assessments be restricted within a service. That is not how combat commanders fight. They focus on missions, not service ownership. If cuts to defense are coming, then it is crucial that the DoD maintain the most effective, efficient options, regardless of service. If past DoD budget cuts are any indicator, DoD budget “experts” will once again resort to their traditional monetary spreadsheets focused on unit cost and service-focused budget columns. Leadership from the very highest levels is crucial to ensure the very best options are preserved and prioritized. Joint cost-per-effect analysis is what will ensure a given amount of money will yield the most value at a time when it matters the most. Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula is dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Power Studies. He has more than 3,000 flying hours under his belt, and he planned the Desert Storm air campaign and orchestrated air operations over Iraq and Afghanistan. Douglas A. Birkey is the executive director of the Mitchell Institute, where he researches issues relating to the future of aerospace and national security. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/31/potential-defense-budget-cuts-demand-a-new-calculus/