February 3, 2022 | International, Aerospace, Land
Data and rockets: US military eyes new tech to supply far-flung forces
TRANSCOM hopes a rocket cargo program could one day fly a C-17's worth of cargo to any spot in the world in an hour.
May 23, 2019 | International, Naval
By: Andrew Chuter
LONDON — Senior British defense procurement officials have found themselves on the wrong end of a verbal battering by the parliamentary Defence Committee.
Lawmakers on Tuesday kept up growing opposition to an international competition to build up to three logistics ships instead of favoring a local consortium.
Led by Defence Procurement Minister Stuart Andrew, ministry officials were forced to fend of repeated questions from the committee as to why they had opted for an international competition instead of awarding a contract to a consortium made up of Babcock International, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce, known as Team UK.
The officials cited the requirement to adhere to European Union procurement rules, known as Article 346, as reasoning for their decision to open up bidding to international shipbuilders.
The fleet solid support ships could not be defined as warships and therefore could not be counted under rules allowing warships to be exempt from international bidding requirements, explained MoD officials.
But according to trade unions and lawmakers, thousands of jobs, sovereign capability and wider economic benefits are all at risk if the MoD opts for a foreign bid for the vessels, known locally as fleet solid support ships.
The deputy chief of the Defence Staff, Richard Knighton, warned the committee that stopping the competition, which could be worth up to £1 billion (U.S. $1.3 billion), would mean serious consequences.
“The competition is already running. To throw that away, the risk would be very serious. In fact there is the certainty we would deliver the capability late and there would be a capability gap,” said Knighton, who is responsible for financial and military capability at the MoD.
International shipyards Fincantieri, Navantia , Japan Marine United Corp., and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering were invited in 2018 to bid alongside Team UK for up to three large logistics ships earmarked to provide support for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier fleet.
In recent weeks the list of interested companies shrunk. Andrew said he could confirm Fincantieri's withdrawal but was unable to comment on reports Daewoo had also pulled the plug on its bid.
An MoD spokesperson declined to say whether Daewoo was in or out of the competition. “The MoD does not comment on speculation," the spokesperson said. “Any decision to withdraw from the competition is a matter for each tenderer.”
‘Ludicrous' explanations
The ministry's Article 346 explanation infuriated some committee members. Mark Francois, a former defense minister, termed the MoD's position as “patently ludicrous.”
“You are treating this like a game. If you declare this ship a warship under the national shipbuilding strategy, you have to award it to a U.K. yard. But you are worried you will be over a barrel in terms of the pricing, so in order to prevent that you insist it's not a warship so you can compete it internationally in order bear down on the price you have to pay,” Francois said.
Other members of Parliament said the position was indefensible and pointed to the fact that France and other nations had kept contracts in-house for similar ships.
“Some have chosen to class it as a warship and some have chosen not to class it as a warship, and we are trying to pretend we had to [define it as not a warship]. That seems to stretch credulity," Defence Committee Chair Julian Lewis said.
MoD officials added that by exposing local shipbuilders to international competition, they were trying to make U.K. industry more competitive, and not just for local orders but in the international market, adding that the industry can't solely rely on domestic work.
What are the ships for?
The logistic ships are part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, an organization separate from the Royal Navy that is tasked with supplying warships with ammunition, food, fuel and other stores at sea, including in war zones. The ships are registered as merchant vessels and crewed largely by civilian staff, although they do carry defensive weapons like the Phalanx gun.
Under the Conservative government's national shipbuilding strategy launched in 2017, the logistics ships were earmarked for international competition. The author of the original report, John Parker, is conducting a review of the strategy, which is due for publication this year.
The budget for the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary for the coming decade has £60 billion earmarked for building surface ships and nuclear submarines. More than half of that is for renewing the submarine nuclear missile fleet.
BAE's shipyard in Glasgow is responsible for the construction of the first three of an expected order of eight Type 26 anti-submarine frigates. A competition is underway between three bidders to build five F-31e general-purpose frigates.
Babcock recently closed a small shipyard in Appledore, Devon, after finishing an offshore patrol boat order for the Irish Navy, and there are concerns over the future of the company's large shipyard at Rosyth, now that the assembly of the second Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, is nearly complete at the Scottish yard.
The Rosyth shipyard would be the likely venue to assemble the large logistics ships in the event Team UK succeeds with its bid.
The Defence Committee hearing was the latest effort to crank up pressure on the MoD to change its mind over whether international companies can bid on the deal for the logistics ships. Recently, an all-party parliamentary shipbuilding group released a report recommending the government "choose to build new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships in the UK and thus retain the skills needed for the construction of complex warships.”
Bids for two fleet solid support ships, with an option on a third if the MoD can find the money, are due in late July 2019. The winning contractor would agree to a firm fixed-price design and build deal by July 2020. The first ship is due in service by 2026.
The new defense secretary, Penny Mourdant, has also stepped into the fray, perhaps decisively. In her first speech as defense secretary last week, she signaled that the MoD is reviewing projects such the logistics ship program.
Francois, the former defense minister, claimed Mourdant's announcement effectively awarded the contract to Team UK, although that was denied by MoD officials.
“The secretary of state did not say that. She was explicitly asked in the questions after the speech whether she could confirm that fleet solid ships order would go to a British shipyard, and she said, ‘No,' ” the defense procurement minister explained.
Britain has previously purchased logistics ships overseas. Four fleet oilers were recently delivered from South Korean shipbuilder Daewoo. The ships arrived months late, and the fixed-price deal cost the shipyard a pile of money remedying faults with the oilers.
On that occasion there was no British bid for the work, although a domestic shipyard did secure a deal to equip the oilers with sensitive equipment like sensors and weapons.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/05/22/is-britain-buying-a-warship-depends-who-you-ask
February 3, 2022 | International, Aerospace, Land
TRANSCOM hopes a rocket cargo program could one day fly a C-17's worth of cargo to any spot in the world in an hour.
September 20, 2023 | International, Land, C4ISR, Security
Australia is mulling which high-tech areas it will pursue alone or which may fall under AUKUS, as it ensures all its efforts focus on top warfighter needs.
October 5, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — A combination of Chinese influence and budgetary uncertainty means America's defense industrial base is decaying at the lower levels, with some vital suppliers facing “domestic extinction,” a new study from the Trump administration is warning — and direct investment from the administration appears to be the solution. The study, the result of an executive order issued by president Donald Trump last July, also warns that if the situation is not remedied, the Pentagon faces “limited capabilities, insecurity of supply, lack of R&D, program delays, and an inability to surge in times of crisis.” The language seems dire, but much of the 140-page report appears to contain little new for those who have paid attention to defense industrial issues over the last several years. Many of the concerns outlined in the report echo that of a Defense Department internal study, released earlier this year, which warned long-term trends, including demographics and sole-source suppliers going out of business, were set to create major hurdles for the department. The report has been long coming. Trump ordered its creation in July of 2017, with Peter Navarro, his trade czar and a well-known China hawk, as the coordinating point man. At the time, Navarro said the study was being driven by concerns that “we cannot retain a preeminent military without a healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base.” By May 2018, the Pentagon had sent its conclusions into the White House for coordination which set industry expectations of a release shortly thereafter. However, the release dated continued to be pushed back, due largely to other news overtaking the White House. Trump, along with Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, is expected to appear at the White House Friday around 1:45 PM eastern time to sign several actions into law. The full report will be released shortly after. The report identifies five macro issues facing the defense industrial base: Sequestration and uncertainty in U.S government spending, which create instability and drives small firms away from defense work A decline of U.S. manufacturing capability and capacity, leaving weaknesses throughout the supply chain Antiquated U.S. government business practices, which the report warns leads to contracting delays and discourages innovation Industrial policies of competitor nations, both due to “collateral damage of globalization” and specific targeting by great powers like China And diminished U.S. STEM and trade skills, which are creating gaps in the workforce. The Departments of Defense, Energy, and Labor all submitted recommendations in the report, to deal with 300 individual weak points that are of concern. Notably, DoD's conclusion calls for the expansion of “direct investment in the lower tier of the industrial base,” through the department's Defense Production Act Title III, Manufacturing Technology, and Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment programs. That would address “critical bottlenecks, support fragile suppliers, and mitigate single points-of-failure.” Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters it would not be “prudent” at this point to put a total dollar figure on what investment might be coming, but a senior administration official, speaking on background ahead of the report release, identified several shops being given extra cash. Those include $70 million fr a plant that produces gun components, in order to launch modernization and risk mitigation programs, as well as $1 million for the facility that produces the Abrams tank to procure better tooling. DoD's conclusions also call for the creation of an industrial policy to “inform current and future acquisition practices;” to attempt to diversify away from complete dependency on sources of supply in politically unstable countries who may cut off U.S. access, including “reengineering, expanded use of the National Defense Stockpile program, or qualification of new suppliers,” to work with allies on joint industrial base challenges; and to “modernize” the organic industrial base to ensure readiness. The Department of Energy, whose National Nuclear Security Agency handles the development of nuclear warheads, will propose establishing an “Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program to address manufacturing and industrial base risk within the energy and nuclear sectors” as part of its FY2020 budget request. And the Department of Labor will work to encourage STEM growth, as well as consider “potential incentives to recruit and retain workers to enter and/or stay in the industrial base, such as tuition reimbursement.” All three departments must provide an update 180 days from the issuance of the report. The Chinese Bogeyman While the report casts itself as part of the broader return of great power competition, it is impossible to miss that the authors view China as the industrial bogeyman. The words “China," “Chinese” or “Beijing” appear in the report 232 times; “Russia” appears only once, as part of a quote from another document — which also mentions China. The report is being released the same day that Vice President Mike Pence gave a keynote speech in Washington decrying what he called Chinese attempts to influence the American public, and just hours after Bloomberg issues a bombshell report that a Chinese company had managed to insert tiny, microscopic chips into hardware used by both the DoD and American intelligence services. “The Chinese Communist Party has also used an arsenal of policies inconsistent with free and fair trade, including tariffs, quotas, currency manipulation, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and industrial subsidies doled out like candy, to name a few,” Pence said in his speech. “These policies have built Beijing's manufacturing base, at the expense of its competitors — especially America. That China is attempting to infiltrate the defense industrial base is no surprise to those who have been tracking DoD's comments on the issue in the last several years, but the report sums it up thusly: “While multiple countries pursue policies to bolster their economies at the expense of America's manufacturing sector, none has targeted our industrial base as successfully as China.” “China represents a significant and growing risk to the supply of materials and technologies deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national security; a challenge shared by key allies such as Germany and Australia,” the report adds, singling out rare earth metals and critical energetic materials for munitions and missiles as areas of concern. “China's actions seriously threaten other capabilities, including machine tools; the production and processing of advanced materials like biomaterials, ceramics, and composites; and the production of printed circuit boards and semiconductors.” China is four times as large as its next closest competitor when it comes to exporting to the U.S. rare earth materials, used in lasers, radar, sonar, night vision systems, missile guidance, and jet engines, making Beijing a significant supplier of these capabilities needed for America's high-end defense capabilities. Single sourced, and disappearing While much of the specific weak points in the defense industrial base are not spelled out in the public-facing part of the report, the 140-page document does include a number of examples of weak spots in the defense industrial base, largely in the lower-tier suppliers who make pieces and parts that would ordinarily go unnoticed on a large military system. A senior administration official, speaking ahead of the report's release, cited ceramics, high performance aluminum and steel, titanium, tungsten and carbon fibers as some of the components the Pentagon is concerned about. The report offers further examples. For instance, it says there are only four America suppliers with the capability to manufacture large, complex, single pour aluminum and magnesium sand castings, needed to help produce American airpower. Those suppliers “face perpetual financial risk and experience bankruptcy threats and mergers mirroring the cyclicality of DoD acquisition,” per the report. Meanwhile, there is only one qualified source for the upper, intermediate, and sump housing for an unnamed heavy lift platform used by the Marines (potentially the CH-53 King Stallion) that recently went through bankruptcy proceedings. “Without a qualified source for these castings, the program will face delays, impeding the U.S. ability to field heavy lift support to Marine Corps expeditionary forces,” the report warns. A material called ASZM-TEDA1 impregnated carbon is used in 72 chemical, biological and nuclear filtration systems owned by the DoD, and there is only a single qualified source, the report notes. “The current sourcing arrangements cannot keep pace with demand. DoD is using Defense Production Act Title III authorities to establish an additional source of this critical material,” the report says. In yet another example, the study looked at the companies that make flare countermeasures for military aircraft. There are only two domestic suppliers for flares with “little incentive to invest in infrastructure,” and both suffered explosions at their production sites in recent years. “Both companies have experienced quality and delivery problems since the accidents. As program offices look to improve quality and cost, they are beginning to look offshore at more modern facilities, where there are fewer quality and safety concerns.” Hawk Carlisle, a former Air Force officer who now leads the National Defense Industrial Association, called the reporter's findings “sobering." “Recent efforts by Congress and the administration have been encouraging, but more must be done,” Carlisle said. “Streamlining the acquisition process, updating the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States guidelines, and reforming how we sell our systems to allies and partners have all been steps in the right direction.” Added Eric Fanning of the Aerospace Industries Association, "Guaranteeing the health of the American manufacturing and defense industrial base is a critical national security and economic priority as the United States combats today's threats and those we'll face tomorrow. We applaud the Administration's focus on these issues and look forward to working together to implement the assessment's recommendations with the same spirit of industry-government cooperation and engagement that led to today's report,” Both groups were part of 15 conversations the working group had with industry during the production of the report. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/04/white-house-warns-of-domestic-extinction-of-suppliers-in-industrial-base-report-and-dod-is-ready-to-help-with-cash