Lockheed offers Polish industry a seat at its rocket launcher table

On the same subject

• 

  April 29, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Will commercial and military launch programs ever be truly complementary?

  By: Kirk Pysher In a few months, the U.S. Air Force will choose two of the four competing space companies to provide five years of launches in the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. One of the core objectives for this program is to increase affordability by leveraging the technologies and business models of the commercial launch industry. Is that a realistic expectation given the current commercial space market and historical precedents? Historically, the commercial launch market has seen significant variability. Launches of commercial communication satellite constellations began in the early 1970s with NASA serving as the launch provider. New launch providers began to emerge from the commercial world after the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 allowed the private sector to provide launch services. We then witnessed a remarkable growth in commercial space launches in the 1990s that peaked just before the turn of the century. Then, until about 2014, the commercial launch market stabilized at 20-25 commercial geostationary orbit satellites per year that were split essentially between three global launch suppliers. Since then, new entrants into the commercial launch market and pricing pressure from terrestrial-based communication systems have significantly impacted the viability of the commercial launch market, reducing profit margins and returns on investment across the board. The expected 20-25 commercial GEO missions is now in the range of 10-15 launches per year and is expected to remain at that level beyond the NSSL five-year period of performance. With new entrants into the commercial launch market, that 40-50 percent reduction in annual launch opportunities will now be competed among seven to eight global launch providers, putting further pressure on the viability of those launchers. Additionally, commercial launch revenue is also expected to decrease over that period by as much as 30 percent as satellite operators look to reduce their launch cost through shared launch, smaller spacecraft and reduced launch pricing. Given the projected commercial launch market and additional competition from new entrants, launch service providers will have difficultly building and maintaining viable commercial launch business plans, let alone having commercial launch-driven capital to invest in new technology. History has proven that no commercial launch service provider can succeed without having an anchor government customer. The commercial launch market simply has not been able to provide the stable, long-term demand needed to maintain affordable pricing, innovation and factory throughput for the Air Force to benefit from. History has also demonstrated that it is the Air Force with NSSL since 2003 that has provided the launch service providers with a stable number of launches. The defense and commercial launch markets have a fundamental difference. The former focuses strictly on satisfying national security mission requirements in space — needs that are driven by risk, strategy and geopolitical events regardless of vulnerabilities in commercial markets. The defense market began in the late 1950s with industry designing, developing and building launch vehicles for the U.S. government to place critical national security satellites into orbit. Early on, we saw a large number of launches in the beginning — peaking at more than 40 in 1966 — before activity levels decreased to level out by 1980. After more than 400 launches of defense-related satellites, the defense launch market finally settled into an average eight launches annually, whereas the commercial launch market is strictly tied to the ability of global satellite operators to close business plans and obtain institutional and/or private funding on new and replacement satellites. The global COVID-19 pandemic is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of all commercial markets. Airlines, aircraft manufacturers and commercial space companies are needing to seek tens of billions of dollars in government assistance; and private commercial space investors are also reassessing their risk postures, as is demonstrated by the recent OneWeb bankruptcy filing. Given the projected decline in commercial launch along with the historical precedents, there would be significant risk for the Air Force to expect to leverage benefit from commercial launch. In fact, I believe history has demonstrated that it is commercial launch that is able to leverage the benefits derived from the steady cadence of defense and civil government launches. The Air Force, in its role as anchor customer, needs to clearly understand commercial market dependencies and business cases of its key providers. With that understanding, the Air Force will mitigate any risk of critical national security missions being dependent on a finicky and fluctuating commercial market. Kirk Pysher is an aerospace executive with more than 20 years in the commercial launch market, serving most recently as the president of International Launch Services until October 2019. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/28/will-commercial-and-military-launch-programs-ever-be-truly-complementary/

• 

  November 9, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  US defense industry pushes back on White House’s proposed $33B budget cut

  By: Joe Gould and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The American defense industry is warning that defense cuts proposed by the Trump administration could undermine the Pentagon's efforts to modernize the military and address threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and transnational terrorism. The Aerospace Industries Association, with the weight of the country's large and small defense firms behind it, issued a statement Thursday warning President Donald Trump and Congress “to provide steady and stable growth in defense spending in the fiscal year 2020 budget request and beyond” if they want to be able to meet those threats. The message comes as Democrats — expected to prioritize domestic spending and question record defense increases — won the House this week, and after White House budget director Mick Mulvaney ordered the Pentagon to prepare for a $700 billion national defense budget proposal for fiscal 2020. (For comparison's sake, the Pentagon is also continuing to prep the $733 billion budget it was expecting.) AIA argued in its statement that the last two years of budget growth have helped the Department of Defense and industry turn things around after years of war and budget instability, but not entirely. “As a result, military readiness is improving, and our industry is responding with more innovation and advanced capabilities,” the statement reads. “But the shortfalls of the last decade cannot be erased in the space of two years, and now the Administration has announced potential reductions in defense investment that could undermine the improvements that are just now materializing.” Last year, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis testified that the Pentagon needed 3 to 5 percent annual growth above inflation through 2023 to stay ahead of near-peer adversaries Russia and China. Congress responded with a $700 billion national defense budget for 2018 and $716 billion for 2019 — but also a $1 trillion tax cut that's grown the national deficit. National security adviser John Bolton said publicly, days before Tuesday's election, that the national debt is “an existential threat to society” and that Pentagon spending will have to “flatten out” in the near term. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan had signaled in recent weeks that modernization programs like hypersonic weapons systems would take a hit if the budget falls. “It comes down to a judgment call, how fast do we modernize? And that's probably the biggest knob that we have to turn,” he said. Along similar lines, AIA argued that to achieve the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy — which "requires armed forces that are large and capable enough to meet multiple threats in multiple environments” — “we must continue to invest in the most effective technology and weapons we can provide.” “America's competitors and adversaries have made huge strides in their offensive and defensive capabilities, from submarines to cyberspace, and continue to develop advanced technology and sophisticated operational concepts,” the statement warns. Though it's unclear how sensitive the administration will be to this call, it has been vocal about its focus on the defense-industrial base in concert with Trump's emphasis on the American economy. A Trump-ordered study found roughly 300 gaps and vulnerabilities across America's network of defense suppliers; Pentagon officials are hopeful a third of those issues will be addressed in the next year. Whatever the administration does with its budget submission, it will be up to the new Congress to tweak it. Following the midterm elections, analysts have predictedlawmakers in next year's divided government will overcome gridlock to reach a budget deal that maintains flat defense spending. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/11/08/us-defense-industry-pushes-back-on-white-houses-proposed-33b-budget-cut

• 

  July 2, 2019 | International, Naval

  Three companies awarded $1.8B to support Navy shipbuilding programs

  By Allen Cone June 27 (UPI) -- Three companies -- BAE System Technology Solutions and Services Inc., Serco and Scientific Research Corp. -- have been awarded combined contracts by the U.S. Navy worth up to $1.8 billion to support the branch's shipbuilding programs, including communications and computers systems aboard vessels. The initially obligated amount on orders will not exceed $747 million throughout the duration of the awarded contracts, the Defense Department said in an announcement Wednesday. The work will be performed aboard new construction aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious ships, including refueling and complex overhaul ships. The programs require integrated work on integrated command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems, or C4I. This includes logistics, integration, engineering, procurement, fabrication, assembly, test, inspection, zone integration and installation. The integrated capability comprises distributed systems that provide network capabilities, communications, command and control, intelligence, and non-tactical data. The breakdown is $601.5 million for BAE, $608.2 million for Serco and $599.5 million for Scientific, the Pentagon said. Seventy-three percent of the work will be performed in Newport News, Va., 17 percent in Charleston, S.C. and 10 percent in Pascagoula, Miss. Work is expected to be completed by June 2029. No contract funds have been obligated at the time of award. Each company will receive $50,000 on the first task order under each contract, which won't expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Naval fiscal 2017 shipbuilding and conversion, fiscal 2019 shipbuilding and conversion, and fiscal 2019 research and development funds will be obligated. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/06/27/Three-companies-awarded-18B-to-support-Navy-shipbuilding-programs/5311561636928/