Hungary's defence procurement agency hacked, government says

On the same subject

• 

  July 3, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  United Technologies’ F-35 Engines Chronically Late, Pentagon Says

  By Anthony Capaccio United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit is chronically late delivering engines for the Pentagon's costliest program, the F-35, raising questions about whether the company is ready for a surge to full-rate production scheduled for next year. Pratt remains under a previously unreported “Corrective Action Request” from the Defense Contract Management Agency that cites “poor delivery performance” on its current batch of engines for the fighter jet, including for the most complicated version used by the Marine Corps and the U.K. for vertical takeoffs and landings. The agency's action is likely to be watched not only by the Pentagon and international buyers of the F-35 but also by shareholders and investors assessing United Technologies' planned merger with Raytheon Co., which would fortify the combined company's standing as one of the top U.S. defense contractors. The F-35 engines would be one of the new company's top revenue producers. United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit is chronically late delivering engines for the Pentagon's costliest program, the F-35, raising questions about whether the company is ready for a surge to full-rate production scheduled for next year. Pratt remains under a previously unreported “Corrective Action Request” from the Defense Contract Management Agency that cites “poor delivery performance” on its current batch of engines for the fighter jet, including for the most complicated version used by the Marine Corps and the U.K. for vertical takeoffs and landings. The agency's action is likely to be watched not only by the Pentagon and international buyers of the F-35 but also by shareholders and investors assessing United Technologies' planned merger with Raytheon Co., which would fortify the combined company's standing as one of the top U.S. defense contractors. The F-35 engines would be one of the new company's top revenue producers. The company, which is the sole supplier of engines for the fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp., must demonstrate by year-end that it has delivered on promised improvements to solve the problems that led to the agency's formal request in December, spokesman Mark Woodbury said in a statement outlining the issues. Full Production The $428 billion F-35 program is scheduled for approval next year to enter full-rate production, the most lucrative phase of a weapons program for contractors. The decision is contingent on an assessment during the aircraft's current round of intensive combat testing that it's effective and can be maintained. Of the $428 billion, as much as $66 billion is to be spent on at least 2,470 engines -- designated the F135 -- for U.S. jets, including $53.4 billion in procurement, according to the Defense Department's latest Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35. Pentagon budget documents indicate the engine program is valued at about $2 billion annually for Pratt, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Douglas Rothacker. John Thomas, a spokesman for Pratt, said in an emailed statement that “we take seriously our responsibility to meet F135 production commitments. The corrective action plan submitted earlier this year lays out how we are doing that. Over the past year, we have invested more than $200 million for additional capacity, and currently have over 100 Pratt & Whitney employees deployed to our supplier facilities in support of production obligations.” Revenue Potential Pratt & Whitney President Bob Leduc underscored the engine's revenue potential to analysts June 17 at the Paris Air Show. United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit is chronically late delivering engines for the Pentagon's costliest program, the F-35, raising questions about whether the company is ready for a surge to full-rate production scheduled for next year. Pratt remains under a previously unreported “Corrective Action Request” from the Defense Contract Management Agency that cites “poor delivery performance” on its current batch of engines for the fighter jet, including for the most complicated version used by the Marine Corps and the U.K. for vertical takeoffs and landings. The agency's action is likely to be watched not only by the Pentagon and international buyers of the F-35 but also by shareholders and investors assessing United Technologies' planned merger with Raytheon Co., which would fortify the combined company's standing as one of the top U.S. defense contractors. The F-35 engines would be one of the new company's top revenue producers. The company, which is the sole supplier of engines for the fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp., must demonstrate by year-end that it has delivered on promised improvements to solve the problems that led to the agency's formal request in December, spokesman Mark Woodbury said in a statement outlining the issues. Full Production The $428 billion F-35 program is scheduled for approval next year to enter full-rate production, the most lucrative phase of a weapons program for contractors. The decision is contingent on an assessment during the aircraft's current round of intensive combat testing that it's effective and can be maintained. Of the $428 billion, as much as $66 billion is to be spent on at least 2,470 engines -- designated the F135 -- for U.S. jets, including $53.4 billion in procurement, according to the Defense Department's latest Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35. Pentagon budget documents indicate the engine program is valued at about $2 billion annually for Pratt, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Douglas Rothacker. John Thomas, a spokesman for Pratt, said in an emailed statement that “we take seriously our responsibility to meet F135 production commitments. The corrective action plan submitted earlier this year lays out how we are doing that. Over the past year, we have invested more than $200 million for additional capacity, and currently have over 100 Pratt & Whitney employees deployed to our supplier facilities in support of production obligations.” Revenue Potential Pratt & Whitney President Bob Leduc underscored the engine's revenue potential to analysts June 17 at the Paris Air Show. “So another way to think about the F135 is a year ago we made about eight engines a month,” he said. “Right now we are between 13 and 14 engines a month. But when you think about the F135, it's 16 engines a month for the next 30 years. There will be over 4,000 of these airplanes when it's all said and done,” including foreign sales. The primary issues resulting in late engine deliveries “have been related to supply-chain capacity, material shortages” and production issues, according to the contract management agency. “Engine test failures due to high vibrations and foreign object debris continues to plague” production, the agency said in an internal quarterly assessment for January through March. Deliveries of the Marine Corps model engines “have been consistently late,” it said. As of early June, Pratt & Whitney was contractually required to deliver 108 engines in the latest production contract, the program's 11th. Of the 90 delivered, 88 were “late by an average of 40 days,” Woodbury said in his statement. The Pentagon is close to finalizing the award of the 12th and largest F-35 contract to date with Lockheed and Pratt. Spotty Record The current delays add to Pratt & Whitney's spotty track record. Even as deliveries increased to 81 in 2018 from 48 in 2012, 86% of those were delivered late, up from 48% in late 2017, according to an April report from the Government Accountability Office. Asked whether the contract management agency has confidence Pratt will be ready for a full-production decision, Woodbury said the agency is monitoring milestones in Pratt's corrective action plan and needs to see progress before making that judgment. The agency's assessment said that in light of Pratt & Whitney's track record it believes the company “will encounter issues keeping up with demand for any future low-rate and full-rate production contract” that increases quantities. — With assistance by Rick Clough https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-02/united-technologies-pratt-slow-on-f-35-engines-pentagon-says

• 

  July 5, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Tightening Chest and Tingling Fingers: Why Are the Military’s Fighter Pilots Getting Sick?

  BY LARA SELIGMAN On June 28, a young U.S. Navy officer flying in a two-seater electronic warfare jet in the skies over Washington State suddenly felt a tightness in his chest and tingling in his extremities. He instantly recognized his symptoms as signs of hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation. The jet, an EA-18G Growler from a training squadron out of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, diverted to a local airport, and made an “uneventful” landing, according to Navy spokesman Cmdr. Scot Cregan. The crew member, an electronic warfare officer in training, was transported to a hospital for medical treatment. Both the pilot and the trainee officer survived, but the incident, the latest in an alarming string of similar episodes, could have been deadly. Across the U.S. military fleets, pilots and aircrew are experiencing a dramatic surge in so-called physiological episodes, which leave aviators disoriented and shaken. At worst, these unexplained incidents can be fatal — the Navy has linked four F/A-18 fighter pilot deaths over a span of 10 years to the events. The continuing mystery over the pilots' sickness is part of a deeper concern about the military's aviation readiness, as the rate of fatal aircraft crashes recently reached a six-year high. It also raises larger questions over the ability of the world's largest and best-funded military to resolve a basic problem that appears primarily limited to the United States. The Navy considers the physiological episode problem its “number one aviation safety priority.” From 2009 to 2016, the rate of such events increased almost eightfold in the F/A-18 and EA-18G — a version of the two-seater F/A-18 — fleets, from 16 to 125 incidents. In the Navy's T-45 training fleet, the spike is even more significant: In 2009, the Navy reported just one such incident, but in 2016, the number was 38. Most recently, two aviators endured a harrowing landing after the temperature inside their Growler cockpit suddenly plunged to as low as -30 degrees. A mist formed in the cockpit, covering the instruments and windows with ice and rendering the pilots almost completely blind. The aircrew had to turn on the emergency oxygen supply. The crew and ground-based controllers managed to work to land the aircraft safely. But both the pilot and the electronic warfare officer suffered “severe blistering and burns on hands” due to frostbite. The Navy believes the incident was caused by a failure of the environmental control system, a series of pipes and valves that regulates airflow to the air conditioning and oxygen systems. The Air Force has a similar oxygen problem. In 2010, Capt. Jeff Haney died when an engine bleed-air malfunction caused the control system on his F-22 stealth fighter to shut off oxygen flow to his mask. Since then, the episodes have continued in almost every aircraft type, including the A-10 attack jet, the T-6 trainer, and the new F-35 fighter. The most recent incidents have not yet been directly linked to fatalities. But in a sign that the military recognizes the severity of the problem, in the past year both the Navy and Air Force have grounded fleets in response to these events: the Navy's T-45s in April 2017, the Air Force F-35s at Luke Air Force Base in June 2017, part of the Air Force's A-10 fleet in November 2017, and the T-6s in November 2017 and again this February. Neither service has identified a single point of failure or a solution to these episodes despite years of investment — a fact that has not gone unnoticed by prominent lawmakers. “What's occurring in the Navy is absolutely unacceptable,” said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, in 2017. “This is absolutely critical for our pilots.” “I have no doubt the Navy is taking that issue seriously,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, during an event in Washington in 2017. But, “I don't understand why we can't figure out what's causing the oxygen problem.” In May, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), introduced legislation to create an independent National Commission on Military Aviation Safety in response to the surge in deadly crashes over the last year. Some, but not all, of these incidents were related to hypoxia. Meanwhile, NASA has waded into the fray. After completing a congressionally mandated review of the Navy's investigation into the F/A-18 and EA-18G incidents, which faulted both the Navy and manufacturer Boeing, the agency is embarking on a new study of how pilots breathe while flying high-performance aircraft. The services continue making incremental changes to the aircraft design, flight gear, and maintenance procedures in an effort to mitigate the risk to aircrew. In the T-45, at least, these modifications have reduced the number of incidents, according to Rear Adm. Sara Joyner, who until recently led the Navy's physiological episode investigation. Rear Adm.-select Fredrick Luchtman currently leads the effort. But other Navy and Air Force fleets continue to see physiological episodes at alarming rates. “More work remains to be done, and this will remain our top safety priority until we fully understand, and have mitigated, all possible PE [physiological episode] causal factors,” said Rear Adm. Roy Kelley, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic, in congressional testimony June 21. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/03/tightening-chest-and-tingling-fingers-why-are-the-militarys-fighter-pilots-getting-sick/

• 

  January 9, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Turkish ‘brain drain’: Why are defense industry officials ditching their jobs in Turkey for work abroad?

  By: Burak Ege Bekdil ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey's procurement authorities are working to identify why some of the industry's most talented individuals are migrating to Western countries — an exodus that could stall several indigenous programs. Turkey's procurement authority, the Presidency of Defence Industries — also known as SSB and which directly reports to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — conducted a survey to better understand the migration. A parliamentary motion revealed that in recent months a total of 272 defense industryofficials, mostly senior engineers, fled Turkey for new jobs abroad, with the Netherlands, the United States and Germany topping the list, respectively. Other recipient countries are Britain, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Poland, France, Finland, Japan, Thailand, Qatar, Switzerland and Ireland, according to the SSB's internal study. The companies affected by the exodus are state-controlled entities: defense electronics specialist Aselsan, Turkey's largest defense firm; military software concern Havelsan; missile-maker Roketsan; defense technologies firm STM; Turkish Aerospace Industries; and SDT. Findings among those who left and responded to the survey include: 41 percent are in the 26-30 age group. “This highlights a trend among the relatively young professionals to seek new opportunities abroad,” one SSB official noted. 40 percent have graduate degrees; 54 percent have postgraduate degrees; and 6 percent have doctorates or higher degrees. 59 percent have more than four years of experience in the Turkish industry. The largest group among those who left (26 percent) cited “limited chance of promotion and professional progress” as the primary reason to seek jobs in foreign companies. Other reasons cited include lack of equal opportunities in promotion (14 percent); low salaries (10 percent); and discrimination, mobbing and injustice at work (10 percent). 60 percent said they found jobs at foreign defense companies after they applied for vacancies. 61 percent are engineers and 21 percent are industry researchers. Among the respondents' expectations before they would consider returning to Turkish jobs were higher salaries, better working conditions, full use of annual leave, professional management and support from top management for further academic work. They also want the political situation in Turkey to normalize and for employees to win social rights in line with European Union standards. They also want to guarantee there won't be employee discrimination according to political beliefs, life styles and religious faith. They added that mobbing should stop and that employees be offered equal opportunities. A recent article in The New York Times, citing the Turkish Statistical Institute, said more than a quarter-million Turks emigrated in 2017, an increase of 42 percent over 2016, when nearly 178,000 citizens left the country. The number of Turks applying for asylum worldwide jumped by 10,000 in 2017 to more than 33,000. “The flight of people, talent and capital is being driven by a powerful combination of factors that have come to define life under Mr. Erdogan and that his opponents increasingly despair is here to stay," according to The New York Times. "They include fear of political persecution, terrorism, a deepening distrust of the judiciary and the arbitrariness of the rule of law, and a deteriorating business climate, accelerated by worries that Mr. Erdogan is unsoundly manipulating management of the economy to benefit himself and his inner circle.” One senior engineer who left his Turkish company for a job with a non-Turkish, European business told Defense News: “I know several colleagues who want to leave but have not yet found the right jobs. I expect the brain drain to gain pace in the next years, depending on Western companies' capacity to employ more Turkish talent.” https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2019/01/08/turkish-brain-drain-why-are-defense-industry-officials-ditching-their-jobs-in-turkey-for-work-abroad