October 1, 2019 | International, Aerospace
By: Nathan Strout
Space technology is developing so fast that by the time the tech makes it through the acquisitions process and into orbit, it's practically obsolete.
“The technology is moving at such an accelerated pace and these technologies are on such a steep trajectory that the traditional acquisition system just frankly can't keep up,” explained Ken Peterman, president of government systems for Viasat.
To combat this trend, the U.S. Air Force's space acquisition arm, the Space and Missile Systems Center, is focused on quickly building prototypes as a way to speed up development and bring nontraditional companies into the Pentagon's space.
Using tools such as other transaction authorities, Section 804 — a rapid acquisition approach that aims to field capabilities within two to five years — the Space Enterprise Consortium and Air Force pitch days, SMC is encouraging an acquisitions model focused on prototyping over the slower, more cumbersome Pentagon procurement procedure.
The missile warning example
Under the Pentagon's normal acquisition process, it could take the better part of a decade — or longer — from contract award to launching a satellite into orbit. Consider the Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared satellite system. OPIR is supposed to replace the Space-Based Infrared System as the nation's premier early warning missile detection and tracking satellite system, providing significantly more capacity than the current constellation. But under traditional acquisitions, OPIR wouldn't be available until nine years after contract award.
That wasn't going to cut it.
So service leaders took a new approach. Instead of going through the traditional acquisition process, the Air Force would adopt a rapid prototyping approach to accelerate development. And rather than develop large, exquisite satellites meant to last generations, new satellites would be smaller, less expensive and built for replacement in three- to four-year cycles.
“We have existing programs of record ... that continue to take the four or five or six years or whatever that we originally contracted for. I think our goal going into the future is to get more on a three- to four-year cycle for our satellites, not just in production but also in terms of their amount of principal time on work,” said SMC Commander Lt. Gen. John Thompson.
Lockheed Martin used this approach to build three OPIR satellites. Instead of subcontracting with one company to build the satellites' payloads, Lockheed Martin is having two teams compete to build the best OPIR payload. This not only mitigates the risk of failure by having two competing prototypes, but also moves to a fail-early model where a successful prototype is less likely to lead to issues later on.
Applied to OPIR, rapid prototyping has cut the projected timeline for the project in half.
“It is harder to move fast if you haven't done the underlying innovation, prototyping and technology development that allows those systems to go forward. So even when you look at things like Next Gen OPIR, which is not a three- to four-year cycle, we're bringing that from what would have been 108 months down into the five-year timeline; that was the fuel,” said Col. Dennis Bythewood, program executive officer for space development at SMC.
Hither the Space Enterprise Consortium
OPIR is one example of the rapid prototyping approach the Air Force is taking with space procurement. But perhaps the best example of SMC's rapid prototyping approach is the Space Enterprise Consortium, or SpEC.
Established in 2017 through an other transaction authority, or OTA, SpEC is an organization comprised of 325 members who can apply to build space-related prototypes. To date, the Air Force has issued more than 50 awards to the group to develop prototypes, ranging from a ground system for OPIR to a new space vehicle that could extend the Link 16 network to beyond line-of-sight communications. Often, the consortium awards multiple contracts for one project, allowing companies to compete to produce a viable technology.
Although not every prototype succeeds, the approach allows for failure earlier in the development process than the traditional acquisition model.
“[This strategy] allows individual components to fail, but us to continue to move forward. And that's a place where you can see competitive prototyping with multiple vendors going head-to-head. I don't know which one will be successful when we start, but there's a much higher likelihood that I'm going to end up with multiple success at the tail end,” Bythewood said.
Because the consortium specializes in OTAs, it's able to open the door to nontraditional companies that don't have the time or resources to go through the regular acquisition process under the Department of Defense.
“OTAs are good in the sense that they're a lot more flexible, they're not hard contracts — they're just agreements. And in that respect, they attract nontraditional suppliers, people who haven't been working with DoD and don't want to recall all their accounting systems, so that they can comply with all the cost-reporting requirements for DoD and everything like that. So for a lot of companies, they're attractive,” said Cristina Chaplain, director of the Government Accountability Office's contracting and national security acquisitions team.
Small startups and venture capital-funded companies are a big part of commercial growth in space. But for a long time, these companies have been frustrated in their attempts to engage with the Pentagon on space, Chaplain said. OTAs, and the consortium in particular, knock down barriers between the DoD and small, commercial, space-focused companies.
Of course, working with less traditional companies also opens the door to increased risk. These companies aren't necessarily familiar with the way the Pentagon does business. And even if OTAs offer flexibility, working with the government be a major challenge.
That's why SpEC was designed with mentorship in mind. In the SpEC framework, there's room for these small companies to partner with larger, more established players. Kay Sears, Lockheed Martin's vice president and general manager for military space, explained that defense contractors can work with SpEC to find innovative startup companies that need help bringing their new technologies to bare for the Pentagon.
The result is a symbiotic relationship, where prime contractors such as Lockheed can take smaller companies under their wing as they navigate the complex world of the DoD, while the startups can help Lockheed innovate.
“We're not asking those companies to become defense companies, we're asking them to actually stay commercial and stay motivated to their original business plan, but to work with us and we can mentor them to help develop that technology,” Sears said. “So we have to find those nuggets of commercial capability and commercial innovation, and then bridge that into the mission understanding that we have and the mission systems that we can contract (for) and deliver.”
‘The darker side'
While the Air Force is quick to tout the expected benefits of the SpEC approach, there are potential downsides. For one, transparency.
“The darker side is that it's harder to have good management and oversight if you're not requiring all the same things from the contractors. You're not getting the same kind of reporting,” Chaplain said.
The Government Accountability Office can help hold the Pentagon and contractors accountable over the long lifetime of a program contract, tracking spending increases, delays and failures. And the GAO is able to provide some oversight for OTAs, however it's more difficult than programs going through the regular acquisitions process, Chaplain explained.
Another problem is funding. The rapid prototyping approach requires more money up front and a less risk-averse approach. Next Gen OPIR will be a test run for whether Congress can get on board with that approach for space.
As the Air Force sped up OPIR's timeline with rapid prototyping, it created a significant increase in their near-term budget. For fiscal 2020, the Pentagon asked for $1.4 billion for the program. That's a $459 million increase over what was projected for FY20 during the last budget cycle. The House has balked at that amount, authorizing $1 billion of the requested funding.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has taken the opposite approach. Not only did Senate appropriators vote to fully fund the request; they threw in an additional $536 million to fully fund the program. As the senators noted in their report on the bill, OPIR will serve as a test case for whether Congress will support SMC's rapid prototyping approach.
“The Committee believes the program will be a[n] exemplar for rapid acquisition of space programs, whether the program succeeds or fails,” the report read. “Failure will have implications for Congress's willingness to fund future programs using the National Defense Authorization Act section 804 rapid prototyping and fielding authorities for similarly large, or even middle tier programs, for years to come. Alternatively, if the program is to have any chance of success, the [Defense] Department cannot continue to rely on reprogramming requests for its funding.”
The once and future SpEC
Even as the fight over OPIR funding continues in Congress, the Space Enterprise Consortium and its funding has grown by leaps and bounds.
“It has been a vast success story for [SpEC]. We began that contract with a $100 million ceiling, which meant that we could execute many different actions within it up to about $100,000. We took that five times higher within the first year,” Bythewood said.
And SMC seems keen to build on that approach. On Aug. 20, the Space and Missiles Systems Center issued a request for information expressing an interest in re-competing the SpEC OTA agreement. This new SpEC would have a $12 billion ceiling over 10 years.
“We're not going to be awarding a $1 billion contract within SpEC OTA. We're looking at having smaller competitive prototyping efforts that get our products off on the right start in order to deliver capabilities sooner. So if there's a fear ... that we're going to be executing huge programs of record under the SpEC OTA vehicle, that's a kind of [unfounded] fear,” Thompson said.
Another example of the rapid prototyping initiative is the Air Force's new pitch days concept, where on designated days, companies can present new technologies to the government and potentially win a Section 804 contract within minutes. The Air Force has been holding pitch days this year for a variety of platforms. The Air Force will be holding its first “Space Pitch Day” from Nov. 4-8 with a focus on launch systems, data mining, space visualization and space communications.
Whether it's SpEC, pitch days or working closely with contractors, it's clear SMC sees rapid prototyping as the way forward for military space.
“We recognize that when you try new things, some will work great, some will work moderately well and some you might fail fast on. But that's OK because clearly we need to do things differently,” said Peterman of Viasat. “We applaud the kinds of things these senior leaders are doing to try to drive change, get these cutting-edge capabilities into the war fighters' hands as quickly as possible.”
https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2019/09/30/is-rapid-prototyping-the-key-to-space/
August 20, 2023 | International, Aerospace
The proposed stock transaction will be treated as an asset purchase for federal tax purposes, with an expected net present value tax benefit of c.$750m making the underlying economic consideration...
January 24, 2019 | International, Aerospace
Military.com | By Oriana Pawlyk The U.S. Marine Corps' F/A-18C/D Hornet fighter fleet is getting a radar upgrade. The service selected Raytheon Co. to upgrade the aircraft to the APG-79(v)4 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, according to a company announcement. The radar is a scaled version of the APG-79 AESA, which has been integrated into Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. The APG-79 gives pilots additional situational awareness, high-performance targeting and extended range. A contract amount was not disclosed. "With AESA radars, fighter jet pilots and crews tip the scales in their favor over their adversaries," said Eric Ditmars, vice president of Raytheon Secure Sensor Solutions, in a release. "Now that the APG-79(v)4 is slated to fly on the classic Hornet, Marine Corps pilots will be able to identify, track and engage more targets over a greater distance than ever before." Full article: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/01/22/marines-classic-hornet-jets-get-upgraded-radar.html
February 4, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR
By Steve Trimble The U.S. Air Force has released the full, sweeping vision for the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), a two-year-old concept that proposes to disrupt modern norms for the service's command-and-control doctrine, military acquisition policy and industrial participation. The newly released ABMS architecture defines not a traditional program of record but 28 new “product lines” divided into six major components. The implementation strategy is not focused around traditional acquisition milestones measured in years, but rather development “sprints” fielding morsels of new capabilities every four months. The rights for much of the technology, including a new radar, communication gateway and software-defined radio, are claimed not by an industrial supplier, but by the Air Force itself. USAF adopts lead systems integrator-like model ABMS architecture built on government ownership The release of the strategy on Jan. 21 comes three weeks before the Air Force plans to release a budget plan that would shift $9 billion over the next five years for a “Connect the Joint Force” initiative. The proposed funding would come from retiring certain capabilities, including aircraft fleets, within the next five years, with a clear implication: The Air Force is willing, if Congress approves, to trade some capability now to obtain the ABMS over time. “I think of it as we're finally building the ‘Internet of Things' inside the military, something that is very overdue,” says Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, explaining the ABMS to journalists during the unveiling of the architecture in the Pentagon. The scale of the project's ambition has evolved since the ABMS was first proposed in 2018. Air Force leaders unveiled the concept two years ago as a replacement for the airborne Battle Management and Command and Control (BMC2) suite on the Northrop Grumman E-8C Joint Stars fleet. By September 2018, Roper first suggested the same technology could be applied to replace the aging fleet of Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joints and, sometime in the 2030s, the Boeing E-3C Airborne Warning and Control System. Those aims remain intact, but the revealed architecture clarifies that the goals of the ABMS are far broader. If the system is fully realized, the Air Force will create a “combat cloud” on a mobile ad hoc network, transposing the Internet of Things model from civilian technology to the battlefield. As a result, the nearly four-decade-old concept of a centralized command-and-control center—either ground-based or airborne—would be swept away by a future, decentralized digital network. Using computer processors and software algorithms instead of humans, machines would identify targets from sensor data, select the weapons and platforms to prosecute the target automatically, and finally notify the human operator when—or, crucially, whether—to pull the trigger. Roper compares the ABMS' effect on command and control to commercial services on a smartphone, such as the Waze app for drivers navigating traffic. Waze is not driven by a human staff monitoring and reporting traffic hazards, who then review each request for directions and customize a recommended route. Instead, Waze harvests traffic and hazard data from its users, while algorithms mine that information to respond to user requests for services. The Air Force's command-and-control system is constructed around the human staff model, but Roper wants to move the entire enterprise to the Waze approach. “If it didn't exist in the world around us, you'd probably say it was impossible,” Roper says, “but it does [exist].” The challenge for the Air Force is to defend and, if successful, execute that vision for the ABMS. The Air Force needs to secure the support of the other armed services, whose participation is vital to extracting the benefits of such a system. Moreover, the Air Force needs to sell the concept to Congress, despite a system that lacks obvious employment connections to specific legislative districts, such as future factory sites and operational bases. Roper acknowledges the problem of building support for an architecture, rather than a platform, such as a new fighter, bomber or ship. “Those are easy things to sell in this town. You can count them,” he says. “But the internet is not something that's easy to count or quantify, even though we're all very aware of its power.” The Air Force has briefed congressional defense committee staffs on the ABMS concept, but some remain skeptical. A Capitol Hill staffer familiar with the ABMS program doubts that other services will support the Air Force's vision. The ABMS model also appears unlikely to be embraced by industry, the staffer says. A key point of Roper's plan requires companies to cede some intellectual property rights on key elements of the ABMS architecture to the Air Force. But the Air Force is not waiting. Development of the ABMS started last year, even before an analysis of alternatives is completed. In December, the service staged the first demonstration of four new capabilities: transmitting data on a low-probability of intercept link via a gateway between stealthy Air Force and nonstealthy Navy fighters; connecting a C-130 to the SpaceX Starlink satellite constellation; demonstrating a cloud-based, command-and-control network up to a “secret” classification level; and setting up an unclassified common operational picture display at a remote command center inside a tent. As the second in the planned series of triannual events, the Air Force plans to stage the next ABMS demonstration in April, this time involving U.S. Space Force, Strategic Command and Northern Command. Roper, an Oxford-trained physicist, has little patience for the military's traditional development process, although he has made exceptions for complex, hardware-driven programs, such as the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber and the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. For most other programs, Roper wants to trickle out new features at Silicon Valley-speed. A common refrain by military acquisition reformers for decades has been to emphasize delivering an incomplete, “80% solution” sooner than waiting for a system that meets each of sometimes hundreds of detailed requirements. However, for Roper the timeline for delivering even an 80% solution in certain cases is far too long. “[We should] covet the 10-15% solutions that take the next step forward,” Roper said. “Because the learning in that step is so valuable to keep the velocity.” To execute the ABMS vision, Roper appointed Preston Dunlap last year as the lead architect. Unlike a traditional program executive officer (PEO), the architect is a role introduced to the Air Force by Roper, who previously in his career served as the chief architect for the Missile Defense Agency. The six components and 28 production lines for the ABMS are spread across multiple program offices, rather than consolidated under a single PEO. Thus, the role of the architect is to define the vision and then shape acquisition schedules as the various technologies reach maturity. Under Dunlap's architecture, the ABMS is built around six components: new sensors feeding databases in a cloud-based computing environment using software-defined radios, with new apps fusing the data into a common operational picture and integrated effects allowing cruise missiles, for example, to automatically retask sensors on other platforms during flight. Among the 28 product lines, the Air Force proposes to own the rights to the radar, software-defined radio and communications gateway. The Air Force's role resembles the lead systems integrator (LSI) model used for a series of largely failed acquisition programs 15-20 years ago, including the Army's Future Combat System and Coast Guard's Deepwater. In this case, however, the LSI is the Air Force, not an industrial supplier. Such an approach is not unprecedented. The Navy is using a similar model to manage the MQ-25A program, with Boeing selected as a subcontractor to deliver the air vehicle and Naval Air Systems Command providing the ground station and integrating both on an aircraft carrier. The gateway used in the first ABMS demonstration in December offers an example, Roper says. “We took a radio system that was actually built in concert with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to be able to deal with both platforms with the waveforms, and then a Honeywell antenna was able to speak across the frequencies associated with both radio systems,” Roper said. “So we got those three primary vendors working together underneath our government leadership.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/us-air-force-defines-radical-vision-command-control