April 29, 2020 | International, Naval

Navy Acquisition Boosts Ship Contract Awards Under COVID-19

“I think there are ways we can come out of this much more resilient, but you know it's hard to change bureaucracy and institutional ways of doing business [to] make sure that this disruption doesn't go to waste,” says Navy acquisition chief James Geurts.

WASHINGTON: Navy leaders and defense industry execs are worried about the effect the COVID-19 pandemic is having on their supply chains, potentially interrupting critical repair and refit availabilities that could have knock-on effects on deployment schedules.

The Navy's acquisition chief James Geurts told reporters recently that so far, industry is “holding pretty good on near-term milestones,” but he's worried about long-term effects on ship repair and the industry's ability to keep pace.

However, the pandemic seems to be having some beneficial effects.

“Part of my goal for our team is not to recover necessarily to where we were,” before COVID-19, but to change some fundamentals of how the Navy's business gets done, he said. With most of the Navy acquisition force teleworking, “we're basically 32 percent ahead on contract awards,” of where they planned to be at this point in the year. “And so, that means there are processes that are working much more efficiently now than they were before, so I want to capture those,” he said.

The Navy and shipbuilders are trying to do the same thing in the shipyards where “maybe different techniques will allow us to gain some efficiency while also creating some resiliency,” that will help weather any future disruptions and setbacks.

The big shipbuilders like Huntington Ingalls and Bath Iron Works are staggering shifts and allowing liberal leave and teleworking without suffering much disruption so far, company officials have said.

Geurts said the lessons they're learning could lead to the conclusion that, “we cannot operate the way we used to operate, which had a lot of fragility and brittleness as we're seeing right now. It's got to drive to the way we need to operate in the future, which has to have resiliency for whatever disruption that might come up. That's what we're really trying to watch closely and think two or three phases ahead, and not just get caught up in managing today's crisis.”

Even before COVID-19 tore through the global economy, the Navy was looking at ways to save money on repairing ships. Last month the service backtracked on plans for a classwide service-life extension project for its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that would have added a decade to their 35-year service lives.

Not keeping the Burkes longer, and saving on their life-extension upgrades, would free up money for the Navy to buy more unmanned systems and other smaller ships to fit into plans Defense Secretary Mark Esper is making with Navy leadership for a smaller, faster, more stealthy fleet.

To that end, the service has been working on changing how it awards ship maintenance contracts, and is working to “bundle” multiple ship repair contracts together to give industry a more predictable work schedule, allowing them to plan long-term. “Ultimately, getting them bundles is the key to us being successful delivering these [ships] on time,” the commander of Naval Sea Systems Vice Adm. Thomas Moore said last month at the annual McAleese and Associates Defense Programs Conference.

Awarding several ship contracts at once will allow the shipbuilder to stockpile parts and arrange work schedules in a more efficient and rational manner, as opposed to the one-off, last-minute contracts the Navy has traditionally awarded for ship repair.

“Industry is rational. That's what I tell everybody — you may not like every decision they make, but the decisions most always are very, very rational,” Moore said.

In the end, “we've got to manage our way through delay and disruption, but really focus on steepening the recovery and reinvention phase to get into the place we need to be,” Geurts said. “I think there are ways we can come out of this much more resilient, but you know it's hard to change bureaucracy and institutional ways of doing business [to] make sure that this disruption doesn't go to waste.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/navy-acquisition-boosts-ship-contract-awards-under-covid-19

On the same subject

February 11, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Security

CAE awarded contract to provide U.S. Customs & Border Protection with aircraft pilot training services
On Feb. 9 at the CAE OneWorld virtual conference and tradeshow, CAE announced that CAE USA has been awarded a contract to provide United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with Aircraft Pilot Training Services. CAE USA will serve as one of the prime contractors on the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract awarded by CBP. CAE USA will leverage the CAE Dothan Training Center and CAE's commercial and business aviation training centers to deliver simulator and live flight training services on a range of fixed-wing and rotary-wing platforms. CAE is featuring a 3D virtual walkthrough of its Dothan Training Center in the Innovation Hub as part of the CAE OneWorld 2021 virtual conference and tradeshow, which began today and is free to all attendees who register at https://www.caeoneworld2021.com. CAE OneWorld 2021 will be available online for the next month. CBP is the unified border agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of the United States borders. CBP is one of the world's largest law enforcement organizations. “The award of the Aircraft Pilot Training Services program for Customs and Border Protection demonstrates CAE's unique ability to leverage both our defense and civil aviation businesses to deliver pilot training across numerous aircraft platforms,” said Dan Gelston, Group President, Defense & Security, CAE. “We look forward to supporting a key organization within the Department of Homeland Security and showcasing CAE's training experience and expertise.” CAE USA will be responsible for coordinating and delivering generic and aircraft-specific training to meet CBP and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certifications for pilots operating a variety of fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. CAE will deliver ground school (academic) and simulator training as well as live flight and other training to meet CBP and FAA requirements. Training will be delivered on multiple variants of the Beechcraft King Air (C-12) aircraft, Bombardier Dash-8 and Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky S-76B helicopter. In addition, CAE will deliver a range of flight instructor qualification and non-specific pilot and aircrew training courses. These include single and multi-engine fundamentals, ab-initio training and upset recovery training. This press release was prepared and distributed by CAE. https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/cae-awarded-contract-to-provide-u-s-customs-border-protection-with-aircraft-pilot-training-services/
February 11, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

European Defense Initiative funding drops in defense budget request
By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is requesting $4.5 billion in funds for the European Deterrence Initiative, the second straight year that the department has cut its request for the program. The EDI is a special part of the department's Overseas Contingency Operations funding, focused on reassuring allies in Europe and deterring Russian aggression on the continent. The Pentagon requested $4.8 billion for EDI in FY18, a request which grew to $6.5 billion in FY19. The FY20 request, however, dropped it down to $5.9 billion. Congress plussed up the funding to $6.5 billion, meaning the department's request for this year would be a $1.5 billion cut. Funding will go towards rotational force deployment and the implementation of previously funded multiyear agreements. It will also support additional exercises in Europe and the prepositioning of U.S. equipment on the continent. Two European officials contacted by Defense News downplayed concerns, with one saying that a drop in funding is normal given the number of infrastructure projects that are being completed. Included in the EDI funding is $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which can be used to replace any “weapons or defensive articles” provided to Ukraine by the U.S. government. Such funding became a flashpoint in 2019, eventually leading to the impeachment of President Donald Trump, who was acquitted in the Senate last week. In the last National Defense Authorization Act, Congress requested that the Pentagon submit a five-year plan for EDI in FY21. Overall, the OCO funding request is $69 billion, slightly down from the $71.3 billion enacted by Congress for FY20. Other major OCO funds include $16.2 billion for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria; $7.6 billion for the replenishment of major munitions that have been expended around the globe; and $4 billion to train and support Afghanistan security forces. OCO also funds $600 million in security cooperation funding, which has now been rebranded as the National Defense Strategy-Implementation fund, or NDS-I. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2020/02/10/european-defense-initiative-funding-drops-in-defense-budget-request
July 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace

Europe must take on its own defense responsibilities
By: Ian Bond As they look at the state of their coronavirus-hit economies and U.S. President Donald Trump's poor standing in opinion polls, many European leaders may be tempted to put on hold any plans to meet NATO's target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. But Europeans need to wake up. Trump is not a reliable ally, and the damage he has done to the trans-Atlantic partnership is likely to linger. Trump's hostility to NATO has been obvious since he called into question its Article 5 mutual defense guarantee during his last presidential campaign. We now know, according to former national security adviser John Bolton's tell-all memoir, that Trump was ready to pull the U.S. out of NATO at its 2018 summit. In recent weeks Trump announced without warning that the U.S. will withdraw 9,500 — more than one quarter — of the 34,500 troops it has stationed in Germany because the German government is not spending enough on defense. Then at a Washington press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump said a large number of NATO countries were “delinquent” and declared that Europe was taking “tremendous advantage of the United States on trade.” Trump may not understand how NATO works or the value to the U.S. of having troops in Germany, but it is true that the U.S. carries a disproportionately large share of the financial burden of defending Europe. During his presidency, Barack Obama also accused Europe of being “complacent” about its own defense — though he was rather more diplomatic. Only a handful of European NATO members have met the alliance's target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense over the past 20 years, while the U.S. has consistently exceeded it, spending 3.1-4.9 percent. But Europe's problem is not just the amount it spends on defense, but the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of its spending: Europeans get far too many systems and far too little military capability for their money. The European Commission's 2017 fact sheet on European defense reported that European Union member states operated 178 different major weapons systems; the U.S. had only 30. EU member states have 17 different types of main battle tank; the U.S. has one. This proliferation of weapons systems leads to high unit costs for short production runs, and a lack of interoperability. And European spending is not directed to ensuring that troops can fight when needed. The European members of NATO have almost 1.9 million active-duty troops, while the U.S. has 1.3 million and Russia about 900,000. But very few of the European forces can be deployed in a crisis. Politically and economically, this is a bad time to try to get European politicians to think seriously about increasing and rationalizing defense spending. The EU's economic forecast for spring 2020 foresees a contraction in real GDP of 7.4 percent this year, albeit followed by an increase of 6.1 percent in 2021. Some of Europe's biggest investors in defense are in NATO but not in the EU. The U.K. accounted for 16 percent of defense spending in Europe in 2019, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. But despite some early promise, Britain seems to have lost interest in any institutionalized cooperation with the EU on foreign and security policy. Relations between the EU and NATO member Turkey, which accounted for another 7 percent of European defense spending last year, have rarely been worse. Despite such difficulties, the fact that NATO and the EU are currently both reassessing the security environment presents an opportunity for a more joint approach. NATO is engaged in the #NATO2030 process, which Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg hopes will strengthen political consultation in the alliance. Meanwhile, by the end of 2020 the EU aims to complete a process to assess the threats it faces, which the bloc calls its “strategic compass.” These two efforts need to complement each other to produce a shared view of the threats to Europe, and the creation of a forum for political dialogue on security where European countries, regardless of whether they belong to both the EU and NATO, can discuss appropriate responses. Europe's ability to counter threats will depend on making its money go further by spending it efficiently, both nationally and multilaterally. The commission should do more to ensure that more defense procurement involves competitive tendering, rather than member states awarding contracts to national champions. But it should not try to shut defense firms from non-EU NATO countries out of the European market. The commission stands more chance of influencing the research and procurement decisions of member states if it has a substantial budget to dangle in front of them. It should keep pushing back against cuts proposed earlier in the year to the defense elements of the EU's next seven-year budget. And the commission needs to be more open to the participation of “friendly” countries in EU-funded programs. Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice president and a contender in the current presidential race, would be an easier president for Europeans to work with than Trump has been. But Biden's victory in November is not guaranteed. Moreover, the forces in U.S. society that propelled Trump to power in 2016 will still exist, and may return in 2024. Even if they would rather pretend that nothing is changing, the EU and as many non-EU, Europe-based NATO members as are willing to do so need to pay attention to Trump's message. And they need to start thinking about how to defend Europe and deter potential adversaries with reduced U.S. help. Ian Bond is the director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform think tank. He was a member of the British diplomatic service for 28 years, most recently serving as political counselor and joint head of the foreign and security policy group in the British Embassy in the United States. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/03/europe-must-take-on-its-own-defense-responsibilities/

All news