Back to news

June 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

How did the two offerings competing to be the US Army’s future engine measure up?

By:

WASHINGTON — Cost appears to have played a major role in the Army's decision to pick GE Aviation's T901 engine for its future helicopter engine, based on a look at documents laying out the service's post-award analysis, obtained by Defense News.

Yet, other factors not shown could have also contributed to the Army's choice, which the Government Accountability Office upheld following a protest from losing team Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC) — a partnership between Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney.

The GAO is expected to release a redacted version of its decision next week, which could shed more light on how the Army decided to move forward with GE.

While the cost of GE'S engine seems to have been a deciding factor, the document outlining the service's criteria to determine a winning engine design to move into the engineering and manufacturing development phase states that “all non-cost/price factors when combined are significantly more important than cost/price factor.”

According to that chart, the Army said it would primarily measure the engine submissions against its engine design and development, followed by cost/price, followed by life-cycle costs and then small business participation in order of importance.

The Army assessed ATEC's and GE's technical risk as good and gave ATEC a risk rating of low while it gave GE a risk rating of moderate when considering engineering design and development for each offering.

Both GE and ATEC had moderate risk ratings when it came to engine design and performance.

And while GE received a technical risk rating of moderate for component design and systems test and evaluation, ATEC received low risk ratings for both.

Almost all other technology risk assessments and risk ratings were the same for both engine offerings.

GE scored “outstanding” in platform integration capabilities.

Based off the chart, it appears ATEC won, so its likely the documents are not an exhaustive representation of how the Army decided to move forward with GE.

While both ATEC and GE offered prices within the Army's requirements, GE came in 30 percent lower in cost.

And according to Brig. Gen. Thomas Todd, the program executive officer for aviation, in an interview with Defense News in April, GE was also working on trying to shrink the timeline within the EMD phase by roughly a year.

But, in ATEC's view, the charts show it had offered the best value product to the Army.

ATEC's president, Craig Madden, told Defense News that the company took the Army's selection criteria laid out in the request for proposals seriously across the board from engineering design and development factors to cost to even small business participation, where it scored higher than GE in the analysis chart.

“We did come in higher in cost but this was considered a best value evaluation and not lowest price, technically acceptable,” Madden said. “I think low price is good for a plastic canteen or a bayonet, it's not good for a highly technical turbine engine.”

And despite coming in at a higher cost, Jerry Wheeler, ATEC's vice president said, the up front cost in the EMD phase will be higher but the delta would shrink when considering life-cycle costs of both engine offerings.

Both ATEC and GE received good technical ratings and were given risk ratings of low.

When just going by the chart, GE's four moderate risk ratings in key categories means “they could have disruption in schedule, increased cost and degradation of performance,” Madden said.

He added ATEC was also focused on lowering risk, so that, although the Army offered incentives to finish the EMD phase earlier than 66 months, ATEC presented a plan to complete at 66 months with a plan to look at acceleration wherever possible.

ATEC is now pushing to be a part of the EMD phase, essentially extending the competition, so that more data on engines can be garnered.

The Army had periodically weighed keeping the EMD phase competitive with two vendors, but ultimately chose to downselect to one.

For GE, the Army made the right decision and had enough data to do so.

“The U.S. Army competitively selected GE's T901 engine over ATEC T900 engine after more than 12 years of development,” David Wilson told Defense News in a statement.

“Those 12 years included the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program, during which both companies ran tow full engine tests,” he said.

Additionally, both companies executed a 24-month technology maturation and risk reduction contract where GE self-funded and successfully completed and tested a third engine, a full-sized T901 prototype engine, with successful tests on all components, Wilson said.

“We've done three full-engine tests and provided an unprecedented amount of test data to the Army for them to determine which engine was the best to move forward with in EMD,” he added.

Funding a second engine through EMD would cost more than twice as much and delay critical Army modernization by at least two years, Wilson argued.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/07/how-did-the-two-offerings-competing-to-be-the-us-armys-future-engine-measure-up/

On the same subject

  • Raytheon, Rheinmetall partner to offer new Lynx fighting vehicle to US Army

    October 9, 2018 | International, Land

    Raytheon, Rheinmetall partner to offer new Lynx fighting vehicle to US Army

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Lynx 41 infantry fighting vehicle made its public debut in the springtime drizzle at a Parisian land warfare exposition in June this year. German defense company Rheinmetall took pains to show its vehicle on scene was not a mock-up, but a real vehicle that came with available footage of its rigorous test campaigns. Ben Hudson, the head of the company's vehicle systems division, told Defense News at the expo that Rheinmetall was “highly interested” in the U.S. Army's Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program, and said to stay tuned on how Lynx might break into the U.S. market as a serious competitor for NGCV. Fast-forward four months, and Rheinmetall has found a high-profile partner in Raytheon to bring Lynx to the U.S. They will participate in what is shaping up to be a competitive prototyping effort with the NGCV program, to replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. Developing a family of next-generation combat vehicles is a top priority of the U.S. Army as part of its modernization strategy focused on multi-domain operations. In fact, it's the second highest priority, underneath bringing Long-Range Precision Fires into the force. “We knew we wouldn't be able to compete for a program as prestigious and large in the U.S. without a strong U.S. partner,” Hudson told Defense News in an interview leading up to the Association of the United States Army's annual conference. “Since Eurosatory, we have been working through that.” The partnership gets after “essentially the best of both of our companies,” Hudson said. It “brings together the world's leading infantry fighting vehicle technology, the vehicle and turret from Rheinmetall,” with Raytheon's capabilities from a systems integration standpoint, he said. “A lot of the gaps that we had in our business to really create that next-generation solution are easily covered by the strengths and capabilities Raytheon has, and some of those things are electronic warfare, signals intelligences, missiles capabilities ... and sensor systems like the third-generation FLIR that are a key plan of the Army going forward,” Hudson said. To bring on Raytheon's technology, the vehicle won't have to be changed much because it was designed from day one to be modular and adaptable. In fact, the company switched configurations at Eurosatory to a hybrid command variant in a matter of hours. The vehicle will be “a U.S. product, U.S. made and, ultimately, we will move to a U.S. engineered platform,” Hudson said. The fact that the Army is ready to dive head first into replacing the Bradley, with plans to have companies compete for a chance to rapidly build prototypes for the OMFV program, makes the partnership with Rheinmetall attractive, said Kim Ernzen, Raytheon's vice president of land warfare systems. Because Lynx already “exists, that is one of the most compelling pieces to this relationship,” she said. But Raytheon and Rheinmetall also share the same philosophies when it comes to company culture and innovation and “how we look at technology that comes to play not only today but, more importantly, has that growth path for the future,” Ernzen said. This aligns with the Army's path to get a next-gen combat vehicle to the field quickly but continue to evolve its technical capabilities to keep pace with evolving threats. This isn't the first time Raytheon and Rheinmetall have partnered on programs. Most recently, the pair unveiled an integrated suite of air-defense capabilities they think could meet the entire portfolio of German air-defense needs, going up against Germany's current development plans to buy a missile defense system from Lockheed Martin. And the duo has also worked to integrate Raytheon's Patriot air-and-missile defense system on Rheinmetall trucks for an unnamed Scandinavian country, among several other efforts. The impact of emerging threats and new requirements drove Rheinmetall to build Lynx to fill a gap in the market. Defeating today's and tomorrow's threats means having a vehicle that weighs well above 50,000 kilos — or more than 110,200 pounds — or one that is rapidly reconfigurable to support different missions. The Lynx KF41 with a Lance 2.0 turret “rebalances the key requirements in the areas of survivability, mobility, lethality, capacity, adaptability and transportability,” Hudson said in June, and is reconfigurable using open-architecture systems and a modular and open mechanical architecture. The vehicle design is “highly scalable,” Hudson said, with more than 18,000 kilos, or more than 39,000 pounds, of reconfigurable payload and an internal volume that allows for the turret and up to nine seats in the back. The new vehicle is fitted with an 850-kilowatt power pack that uses the Liebherr engine and Renk transmission. Additionally, in order to power the digital backbone and all the other weapons systems, more than 20 kilowatts of electrical power is stored on board. The turret also has two flexible mission pods on either side, to allow customizable subsystems such as anti-tank guided missiles, non-line-of-sight loitering munitions, UAVs or an electronic warfare package. Raytheon will provide the third-generation FLIR, fielded on Abrams tanks and also meant for the Bradley A5 upgrade, which has since been canceled to make way for the OMFV. The company also plans to provide other sensor suites, particularly an active protection system that is already being developed and built to be compliant with the Army's future APS system. While Rheinmetall has its own APS — the Active Defense System — that it's been trying to break into the U.S. market as an interim solution for combat vehicles now, the company sees Raytheon's APS offering as “unparalleled” and the plan is to incorporate the capability into the offering. Raytheon and Rheinmetall plan to submit a proposal when the Army's draft request for proposals drops — potentially as soon as this month, but it could slip to November or December, according to Ernzen. Proposals are due in May. The Army plans to follow a similar procurement route as it did with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle and downselect to two competitors who will build 14 prototypes in an engineering and manufacturing development phase in the first quarter of fiscal 2020. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/raytheon-rheinmetall-partner-to-offer-new-lynx-fighting-vehicle-to-us-army

  • US Army’s tactical network team looks to satellites for next iteration of tools

    September 4, 2020 | International, C4ISR

    US Army’s tactical network team looks to satellites for next iteration of tools

    Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army's tactical network modernization team is considering using satellite communications as a service capability for the next iteration of new network tools set for delivery in fiscal 2023. The Army's Network Cross-Functional Team as well as Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical held a technical exchange meeting Sept. 2 to discuss with industry focus areas and goals for Capability Set '23, the next round of new network tools the Army plans to deliver to soldiers every two years. Col. Shane Taylor, program manager for the tactical network at PEO C3T, outlined several priority areas for his program office, including a satellite-as-a-service need that he said provides a “wide gamut of opportunity.” “The opportunity there is it could be anywhere from just leasing terminals to a cradle to [a] grave solution where we just say: 'All right, industry, if I need this capability in this location, what would that look like?' And so the challenge really in the near term is it's such a wide opportunity,” Taylor said. “There's a lot of work that you'll see us ask for some assistance going forward on that.” While Capability Set '21 centered on delivering technology to soldiers to address immediate network gaps, Capability Set '23 is working to increase capacity, bandwidth and resiliency of the Army's tactical network. Satellite communications is critical to that effort, Taylor said. “I'll keep hearkening back to resiliency, thickening, multi-path. SATCOM as a service also has a huge play in that role, and what I mean by that is it gives us just another opportunity to provide capability to the war fighter,” Taylor said. Brig. Gen. Rob Collins, head of PEO C3T, said at the meeting that satellites will be a major focus for cooperative research and development agreements with Combat Capabilities Development Command's C5ISR Center — or Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center. The Army is interested in the networking capabilities that satellites can provide. Collins said in August that the service expects low- and medium-Earth orbit satellites to reach technical maturity in 2025 or 2027. While the Army's tactical network team is exploring LEO and MEO capabilities, Taylor assured industry that traditional geosynchronous systems will still have a role to play. “I think they all have a role,” Taylor said. “But where we need industry's help is getting after the ability to leverage each of those capabilities without having to leverage three different types of systems.” Preliminary design review for Capability Set '23 is scheduled for April next year, with critical design review one year after that. Taylor said his team is also focusing on scalable and multi-band antennas so soldiers don't have to change out “feed horns” to change bands. The team also wants to automate the primary, alternate, contingency and emergency, or PACE, decision-making process based on network quality, metrics and availability, Taylor said. Project Manager Tactical Network is focusing on next-generation line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight communications capabilities as part of a pushing by PEO C3T is to improve low-probability intercept/low-probability detect for Capability Set '23. Additionally, Taylor said his team will “always” be looking for industry's help reducing cost, size, weight and power for the baseband. Taylor's program is also looking for solutions to system provisioning for the next iteration of network tools. “The initialization of the routers and switch[ing] the firewall [configurations] and then how we automate that process and move that out across the network continues to be a challenge.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/09/03/us-armys-tactical-network-team-looks-to-satellites-for-next-iteration-of-tools/

  • Navy Needs Bigger Budget Than Other Services: Rep. Wittman

    March 10, 2020 | International, Naval

    Navy Needs Bigger Budget Than Other Services: Rep. Wittman

    “You can have the greatest brigade combat team in the world," Rep. Wittman said, "but if they can't get to the fight because we don't have a robust ready reserve fleet, that's pretty shortsighted.” By PAUL MCLEARY ]WASHINGTON: A prominent lawmaker waded into the inter-service money wars today by calling for the Navy receiving a larger share of the budget than the other branches of the armed forces. The Army, Rep. Rob Wittman emphasized, can't even deploy abroad without the Navy's help. “We need to look at the one-third, one-third, one-third allocation of defense dollars to all the different service branches,” said Wittman, the top Republican on the Democratic-controlled House Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee. (The actual allocation is a bit trickier than that, but it's close). “No offense in any way, shape, or form to the other service branches, but we're going to need capability in certain areas and we're going to need those at a faster pace than in other areas.” Wittman represents the shipbuilding powerhouse of Virginia — home to massive naval bases and Newport News Shipbuilding, which makes all the nation's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and half its nuclear submarines. He appeared at the Hudson Institute today alongside Rep. Joe Courtney, who chairs the subcommittee and who represents Connecticut, where the other half of the nation's nuclear subs are built at Electric Boat. But it wasn't any of these high-tech, high-cost warships that Wittman singled out today. Instead, the congressman was referring to the major shortfalls in allocating money to modernize the nation's sealift fleet, humble but essential transports. A recent exercise showed the sealift fleet would be unable to haul military equipment overseas quickly in the event of a national security emergency. The snap drill found that of the 33 ships activated, only 22 were ready enough to leave port, according to a December paper from US Transportation Command. Shifting more money to the Navy would be a tough sell in Congress, with its hundreds of parochial interests, but Courtney added that his committee might take up the sealift shortage in its markup of the 2021 budget request in a few weeks, a move that could have wide-ranging implications for the Navy's budget. Wittman didn't lay out plans for shifting money to the Navy, but said “a great example” of why sealift needs to be a priority is “you can have the greatest brigade combat team in the world, you can have the greatest Stryker brigade in the world, but if they can't get to the fight because we don't have a robust ready reserve fleet, that's pretty shortsighted.” Splitting the budget roughly in thirds between the services “is not letting the strategy drive the budget, it's letting the budget drive the strategy,” added, which “creates a strategic vulnerability.” Wittman's comments come in the wake of a earlier dust-up between the services over their share of the budget, after Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday told a navy conference in January “we need more money,” in order to modernize. Budgeting as usual, he said, which means “a one-third, one-third, one-third cut, does not reflect the strategy,” laid in in 2019's National Defense Strategy, Gilday said. “It isn't necessarily aligned with where we need to go against the pacing threat that we face.” The Navy is in many ways faced with the trickiest path to modernizing among all the branches of the military. Even as the service continues to struggle to get ships out of repair availabilities on time, it has also committed to building a new class of aircraft carriers, and has to overhaul its Virginia-class submarines. On top of all that comes the biggest-ticket item — a new class of nuclear-powered submarines about to begin construction, which will eat up over 30 percent of Gilday's budget in a few years. The first of the 12 Columbia subs is scheduled to begin construction in 2021 and enter service in 2031. Once completed they'll carry a staggering 70 percent of the country's nuclear arsenal. To clear space, and the chart a path toward a planned 355-ship fleet, the Navy is scrambling. Last week, plans leaked of Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly's intent to stand up a Future Carrier 2030 Task Force, which will take six months to study how carriers stack up against new generations of stealthy submarines and long-range precision weapons being fielded by China and Russia. The study likely won't be ready until after Defense Secretary Mark Esper wraps up his assessment of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan and its new force structure assessment, however. Esper took control over both studies last month. The Navy is also looking to speed up the acquisition of a new class of 20 frigates, which would be a relative bargain of about $900 each if the service can stick to its plans and things work out the way they envision. In an attempt to clear some budgetary space for all of this, Modly has kicked off a new ‘Stem to Stern' review of back office functions to try and wrong more money out of existing accounts, which he's hoping to find about $8 billion a year in savings. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/navy-needs-bigger-budget-than-other-services-rep-wittman/

All news