Industry bids are in for Finland’s $13 billion fighter race

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

• 

  April 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  COVID closed Mexican factories that supply US defense industry. The Pentagon wants them opened.

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― Factory closures in Mexico due to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting U.S. defense firms, and the Pentagon is urging America's neighbor to the south to reopen vital suppliers. Because Mexico has not designated its aerospace and defense sector as essential, it's disrupting the supply chain for the American defense industrial base, particularly aircraft manufacturers. Though little known, Mexico's defense exports to the U.S. and beyond grew mightily over the last 15 years as defense firms large and small opened production facilities there. Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord said she discussed the problem with U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau. She was planning a letter to Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard, she said, to ask that he, “help reopen international suppliers there. “These companies are especially important for our U.S. airframe production.” The pandemic has raised broader questions about America's dependence on global supply chains, particularly its reliance on China for key medicines and supplies. A Pentagon task force set up to monitor COVID-19′s impact on military suppliers found “several pockets of closure” linked to “international dependencies,” Lord said. “Mexico right now is somewhat problematical for us but we're working through our embassy, and then there are pockets in India as well,” Lord said. More broadly, only small fractions of the Pentagon's suppliers in the U.S. have closed due to the new coronavirus and distancing measures imposed to fights its spread, but the aviation, shipbuilding and small space launch subsectors have been hardest hit by disruptions from the virus, Lord said. The Pentagon is using $250 million from last month's emergency stimulus funding to bolster defense firms, and it will funnel another $750 million to medical resources. The Defense Department is also working with the White House budget office to request “billions and billions” of dollars in future fiscal packages to cover schedule delays, accelerated progress payments and other costs, Lord said. A Pentagon spokesman declined to provide details about the products and companies impacted by the Mexican factory closures, and said Lord's letter to Ebrard was not being shared publicly because it contained sensitive information. A 2013 United States International Trade Commission report noted that General Electric, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin and Eurocopter were among more than a dozen U.S. firms of various sizes that opened Mexican subsidiaries ― all part of a Mexican aerospace export boom. Mexico's growth was fueled by its lower manufacturing costs, duty-free access to markets through the North American Free Trade Agreement, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with the U.S., and by Mexican government subsidies and workforce development efforts. According to the Mexican Federation of Aerospace Industries, or FEMIA, Mexico's aerospace exports rocketed from $1.3 billion in 2004 to $9.6 billion last year. Lizcano said Mexico manufactures everything from avionics, to landing gear and fuselages, and it's in the top ten overseas suppliers to the U.S. aerospace and defense sector. But coronavirus is blunting Mexico aerospace growth, and it is reverberating across its economy. Mexico's Labor Department said this month that the country had lost 346,748 jobs since mid-March due to the economic impact of the new coronavirus. FEMIA is arguing publicly that its government should designate Mexico's aerospace and defense sector as “essential,” to synchronize with the U.S. and Canada, its general manager, Luis Lizcano, told Defense News. It's also coordinating with its trade association counterparts in the U.S. and Canada. “What we're asking is that we standardize in this sector because we're going to break with supply chains with OEMs for commercial and defense aircraft,” Lizcano said. The U.S.-based Aerospace Industries Association had a similar argument: “Maintaining the free flow of goods and services between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is vital to our nation's economy and to our industry," AIA President and CEO Eric Fanning said in a statement. He hailed the recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement as aid to that goal. “However, this certainty is currently threatened by disruptions in America's common aerospace and defense supply chain affecting companies of all shapes and sizes. To restore certainty and keep goods and services moving, all levels of government within the U.S., Canada, and Mexico must work together to provide clear, coordinated, and direct guidance about how best to protect our workers, while ensuring aerospace and defense is declared an ‘essential' function in all three countries. "A unified North American approach helps ensure critical operations will continue under some of the strictest health and safety standards in the world and offer much-needed stability during this crisis.” On Monday, the CEO of the National Defense Industrial Association, retired Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, said the increasingly global nature of some American defense supply chains cannot and should not be reversed. The U.S. ought to keep its suppliers diversified, he said, to avoid choke points overseas. “What you don't want are single points of failure where if something happened in that country, it couldn't produce,” Carlisle said. “You have [to have] multiple, avenues to supply that capability. Some may be internal, and you can have more than one nation external.” https://www.defensenews.com/2020/04/21/covid-closed-mexican-factories-that-supply-us-defense-industry-the-pentagon-wants-them-opened/

• 

  May 13, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Suisse : Les appels d'offres pour un nouvel avion de combat prolongés jusqu'en novembre

  La pandémie de Covid-19 chamboule le calendrier des offres pour les nouveaux avions de combat et du système de défense sol-air. Le Département fédéral de la défense (DDPS) a fixé mardi à novembre le nouveau délai pour les offres. Ce nouveau calendrier n'a aucune incidence sur la suite du processus d'acquisition, assure le département dans un communiqué. Les informations tirées des deuxièmes offres ainsi que des résultats des divers tests permettront d'identifier les points forts de chaque système. Le DDPS doit réagir au fait que les fabricants sont aussi touchés par les mesures visant à freiner l'épidémie. De plus, les impératifs de confidentialités interdisent les collaborateurs des entreprises sollicitées à traiter les offres en télétravail. Les entretiens en personne, nécessaires pour concrétiser les exigences relatives aux affaires compensatoires, ne sont pas possibles. Ils ne peuvent pas toujours être remplacés par des téléconférences en raison du degré de classification des sujets abordés. Quatre avions Armasuisse avait transmis une nouvelle demande d'offre aux autorités françaises, allemandes et américaines début janvier. Celles-ci étaient initialement attendues pour août. Quatre jets restent dans la course: le Rafale français (Dassault), l'Eurofighter allemand (Airbus), et côté américain, le successeur du FA-18, le Super Hornet de Boeing, et le F-35A de Lockheed-Martin. Pour le système de défense sol-air, seuls les Etats-Unis (Raytheon Patriot) et la France (Eurosam SAMP/T) sont encore en lice. La nouvelle flotte doit remplacer à la fois les Tiger et les F/A-18. Les exigences ont été précisées sur la base des premières offres remises. Les constructeurs sur les rangs devront toujours calculer le nombre d'avions requis pour accomplir les missions de l'armée de l'air, notamment faire voler quatre avions en permanence pendant quatre semaines et assurer la police aérienne 24 heures sur 24. Les nouvelles offres devront indiquer un prix correspondant à 36 et 40 engins, frais logistiques et engins guidés compris. La première offre exigeait un prix pour 30 et 40 avions. Le prix proposé sera un point de départ contraignant des négociations approfondies avec le candidat à l'issue du choix de l'appareil. https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/11319075-les-appels-d-offres-pour-un-nouvel-avion-de-combat-prolonges-jusqu-en-novembre.html