January 11, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Tom Waldwyn and Haena Jo
Over the next decade, companies from emerging defense industrial nations will provide greater competition for the Western and Russian firms that have previously assisted in their development.
Successive Turkish, South Korean, Brazilian and Polish governments have invested heavily in their defense industries over the past decade, leading to much-improved capabilities and the introduction of complex platforms. While many of these are license-builds of Western equipment, a growing share is of original designs. However, their reliance on key subsystems from Western and Russian companies will likely continue for much of this period, presenting a potential vulnerability.
License-building platforms with technology transfer has been used as a means of developing a local industrial capability with a more realistic chance of success than starting from scratch. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, Turkey and South Korea assembled hundreds of F-16 fighter jets, and both have also license-built German submarines, as has Brazil.
Significant investment in these programs has meant that these countries now have the industrial capability to produce an increasing number of platforms with original designs. South Korea's T-50 Golden Eagle (a trainer and light-attack aircraft with multiple variants) was developed based on both the country's experience and technology transfer from assembling F-16s.
Poland's initial license-build of Finnish armored personnel carriers has now led to several local variants based on that design, and Turkey has begun to design a new attack helicopter based on its experience building the Italian-designed T129.
This has gone hand in hand with procurement and industry reform. South Korea created the Defense Acquisition Program Administration in 2006 to manage procurement and develop industrial capability. Poland consolidated most of its state-owned industry under the PGZ holding company in 2015.
South Korea's threefold increase in defense exports over the past decade — $1.52 billion in 2019 with a record high of $2.36 billion in 2016 — has been boosted by its companies winning contracts against European and Russian competitors. The aforementioned T-50 family has won competitions in countries such as Iraq, Indonesia and Thailand at the expense of Western and Russian aircraft. Similarly, South Korean shipyards have now signed deals to export frigates and tankers to a variety of countries including Thailand and the U.K. Significantly, in 2011, a South Korean shipyard secured a contract to supply Indonesia with submarines, beating the German original equipment manufacturer that transferred technology to South Korea in the 1980s for license-production.
Although Turkey's high-profile export successes have largely come due to its political relationships rather than success in open competition, it too has seen its defense and aerospace (including civil) exports more than treble during this time, reaching $2.78 billion in 2019.
Brazil's export successes ($1.3 billion in 2019) have largely come in the aerospace sector with the A-29 Super Tucano trainer/light-attack aircraft being widely exported. Recently the country has begun to secure the first sales of its KC-390 transport aircraft.
Despite strong growth in defense manufacturing capability (both South Korea and Turkey report overall localization rates of around 70 percent, for example), these nations continue to rely on Western and Russian suppliers for key subsystems, with high-end electronics and engines being particular weaknesses. Attempts to fit a locally designed power pack into the K2 Black Panther main battle tank have been wracked with difficulty, forcing South Korea to order additional engines and transmissions from German suppliers. Similarly, Poland's production of its Krab howitzer ran into problems early on due to technical issues with the chassis and engine, forcing a switch to South Korean and German replacements, respectively.
Turkey provides a case study of what can happen when a reliance on foreign subsystems clashes with those countries taking a dim view of your actions. Since the mid-2000s, development of the Altay main battle tank proceeded relatively smoothly, in part because the prototypes were fitted with proven German power packs. However, arms embargoes since 2016 have derailed series production. A 2015 contract to develop a local propulsion system was canceled in 2017 when the Austrian company selected to assist pulled out. Similar issues have hampered the sale of attack helicopters to Pakistan (an Italian design fitted with American engines) as well as the production of armed UAVs (Canadian sensors and engines).
Beyond these emerging challengers for defense exports, other nations also warrant consideration. Japan, a country with a high localization rate since the 1990s, produces a variety of advanced platforms across different sectors. However, changing government and business practices to support export campaigns will take time. India has also invested heavily in its industry, yet bureaucratic conflicts and technical challenges have made fulfilling local requirements a challenge. The United Arab Emirates has begun to export equipment, albeit low-tech materiel.
All this being said, the impact of COVID-19 on government spending will likely be felt for several years, with some importer nations already postponing programs. Whether local demand in exporter nations can make up for this remains to be seen.
Tom Waldwyn is a research associate for defense and military analysis at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, where Haena Jo is a research analyst for defense and military analysis.
July 18, 2022 | International, C4ISR
Space Development Agency Director Derek Tournear on Monday declined to say who else was interested in furnishing the systems, but did say the competition was healthy and heating up.
April 26, 2021 | International, Aerospace
The Defense Department underestimated the complexity of migrating to the new Operational Data Integrated Network, the F-35 program executive officer said.
August 5, 2019 | International, Naval
By C. Michaela Judge, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic Public Affairs CHARLESTON, S.C. (NNS) -- The Land Systems Integration (LSI) Division at Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Atlantic continues to be an enterprise leader in Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) for their work on land systems modernization and integration. MBSE is an engineering approach that utilizes a common, digital tool suite allowing all team members – from engineer to sponsor – to have awareness, line-of-sight and an understanding of the interaction between the various moving parts across the systems engineering and project lifecycle. LSI's Vehicular Technology Transition (VTT) team incorporates the full range of MBSE techniques into their systems engineering projects to support the Marine Corps and has had great success in continuing this approach in their daily work. “What makes LSI and our team specifically successful is the depth of knowledge in implementation of using the MBSE Tool Suite,” said Tim Turner, VTT team lead. “Our engineering work isn't radically different than any other engineering groups across the Command; it's how we're putting the data in the system and making it transparent to everyone that needs to have access to it.” Though engineers have been performing systems engineering in some capacity for decades, using this model-based approach provides an added advantage to deliver effective and timely solutions to the warfighter. “Our MBSE Tool Suite is a set of seamlessly integrated engineering lifecycle management tools that work together as one,” said Jacob Witmer, VTT team Military GPS User Equipment (MGUE) project lead. “We use these tools to manage requirements and architectures, plan projects, track changes, manage quality, and provide an enterprise library management system where you catalog, organize, use, reuse, manage, and report on any type of software, technology, or business asset.” In the vehicle transition domain, the VTT team utilized MBSE techniques to solve real-world challenges for the warfighter. Most recently, they used MBSE to conduct global positioning system (GPS) integration work conducted on the Joint-Light Tactical Vehicle, the MGUE Program's lead platform. “When we look at all of the people our team has to work with on this integration project, we have to manage a lot of different data, to include where the trucks are manufactured, where GPS is managed, the performance level of the GPS card, the truck integration and more,” said Witmer. “There are a lot of players, managing a lot of data in a lot of different formats from different geographic parts of the country. That's really what the MBSE Tool Suite is designed to do – manage, connect and link the data to see how they impact each other.” One cost-avoidance benefit of using the MBSE Tool Suite, in time and man-hours, includes the ability to quickly build reports. “We can build 150-page project requirements documents in three minutes because the data is already in the Tool Suite,” said Ryan Longshore, VTT team technical lead. “There is an investment in time and energy upfront in loading the data, but a report that would take 30 to 90 days is done in a matter of minutes and everything from that project is captured in the report.” The team's use of MBSE is not only essential to connecting and maintaining data across a project, but also a necessary resource in developing physical models and solutions in a fraction of the time previously needed to fulfill a warfighter requirement. “Our team works within the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) to design and test on multiple vehicular platforms,” said Turner. “The lab allows us to execute MBSE across all team functions, from mission thread to risk analysis or program management.” The team maintains physical models for all of the vehicle platforms they support. When a requirement from a sponsor arrives, the team can use tools within the SIL to design and print a three-dimensional piece of hardware and test it on an existing model before they touch a physical vehicle. The team conducts engineering, mechanical and software-related integration testing and design work all within the laboratory. “It's all about testing upfront, learning upfront, failing faster and learning from it and moving on and improving on the design,” said Turner. As the team designs and tests within the lab, they also update the MBSE Tool Suite is to capture lessons learned, integration challenges and real-time project data for all team members to access. “The beauty of the suite being so integrated is that it doesn't matter what type of systems engineering methodology a project uses, the tools can be tailored to meet a myriad of engineering processes and organizing the data by methodology saves countless hours in digging around trying to find historical artifacts,” said Witmer. The team can now complete an integration project that previously took 18 to 36 months as quickly as six to nine months, without sacrificing quality, thanks to the value of MBSE. With VTT and other teams reaping the benefits of MBSE, NIWC Atlantic created a training and workforce development path to work toward a Command-wide adoption of this method. Communities of interest, industry engagements and training events on MBSE methods are a few of the efforts implemented to date. The VTT uses these training approaches, to a smaller-scale, to continue to encourage MBSE implementation and help employees understand the power of using a model-based approach to apply agility in executing warfighter solutions. “We're seeing the benefits and through MBSE my team has the flexibility to fail fast and learn a lot upfront,” said Turner. The team's success with the MBSE Tool Suite is a Command-wide example of how the transparency and connectivity of engineering data help to provide integration solutions to NIWC Atlantic customers with a high confidence of success. As a part of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, NIWC Atlantic provides systems engineering and acquisition to deliver information warfare capabilities to the naval, joint and national warfighter through the acquisition, development, integration, production, test, deployment, and sustainment of interoperable command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, cyber and information technology capabilities. https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=110447