Back to news

August 4, 2023 | International, Land

Oshkosh Defense receives $201 Million order to supply additional FMTV A2S

The FMTV A2 demonstrates ultimate platform flexibility with 16 models and trailers designed to move troops and supplies, recover vehicles and weapon systems, and haul equipment to wherever the mission...

https://www.epicos.com/article/770111/oshkosh-defense-receives-201-million-order-supply-additional-fmtv-a2s

On the same subject

  • Lack of U.S. Warship Repair Capacity Worrying Navy

    August 27, 2020 | International, Naval

    Lack of U.S. Warship Repair Capacity Worrying Navy

    By: Megan Eckstein A deficit of ship repair capacity and an expected change in the Navy's needs for large combatants versus smaller ones may force the entire industry to rethink their roles in construction and maintenance work going forward, a panel of officials said this week. The two halves of the Navy's Team Ships acknowledged that more companies would need to get involved in ship repair, and also that more companies getting involved on the construction side could cause hardship from some of the traditional shipbuilders that have spent years optimizing their yards to build large warships. First, Rear Adm. Eric Ver Hage, the Commander of Navy Regional Maintenance Center (CNRMC) and Director of Surface Ship Maintenance and Modernization, said during the event that “we don't have enough (ship repair) capacity for peacetime,” let alone to repair combat-damaged ships during wartime. “Think about how long it took [USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)] to get back in operations” following fatal at-sea collisions in the Western Pacific in 2017, he said. “We'll see what we do with [USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)], but that'll be a massive effort to repair her if that's where the decision goes – I'm talking years most likely. I think public and private investment is needed” to grow the ship repair industrial base. Ver Hage said the existing repair industrial base is working hard to get more efficient at the work it does, but ultimately that base is too small, especially as the Navy tries to grow its fleet. The rear admiral cited Titan Acquisition Holdings as one example of private investment: private investment firms The Carlyle Group and Stellex Capital Management came together to buy repair companies Vigor Industrial and MHI Holdings – and most recently, Huntington Ingalls Industries' San Diego Shipyard – to invest in the repair business on both coasts of the U.S. in a way that each small company might struggle to do on its own. Ver Hage said the fact that such large investment firms showed interest in ship repair means there's a future to this business model. He also cited the CARES Act, passed by Congress to keep the economy afloat during the coronavirus pandemic, as an example of public investment in shipbuilding and ship repair jobs as vital parts of the military's health but also the economy's health. The second fact the admirals wrestled with is that the shipbuilding industry in recent years has relied primarily on seven yards owned by just four companies to build large warships – but all indications point to a future fleet that relies less on destroyers and large amphibious ships and more on a large number of small amphibs, small combatants and unmanned surface vessels. “If the force structure comes up with the need for a portfolio of lesser large ships and more of the small ships, then the larger yards will have to determine how to flex to that. Their infrastructure is set up to build big ships. Are they capable of building smaller platforms? I think the answer is yes. There's also lots of opportunity for smaller yards who already are pretty efficient at building some of those smaller ships. So assuming that the piece of the pie does not grow, there will be a discussion about where the dollars go and where that capability exists,” Rear Adm. Tom Anderson, the program executive officer for ships, said during the same event. There have long been worries about the consolidation of the shipbuilding industrial base. If the U.S. were to go to war, so few yards have experience working with the Navy and building Navy ships, it would be hard for them to ramp up and help in a shipbuilding surge. The idea of bringing smaller yards into the industrial base has been one of the positives to come out of the discussions of Distributed Maritime Operations and its call to have a lot of small and unmanned ships in the fleet: more companies can compete for these types of ships, bringing fresh ideas and a larger industrial base for the Navy to work with. However, if the large yards see a decline in business, it's unclear what that will mean for the yard and their workers. General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works, for example, only builds destroyers, which may be in less demand under the upcoming force structure assessment, still being reviewed by the Pentagon. Ingalls Shipbuilding is nearing the end of its work on the National Security Cutter, and its work on destroyers and amphibious ships – while certainly not in jeopardy of going away altogether – could see reduced demand as the Navy and Marine Corps eye smaller combatants like a frigate, and a Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) and small amphib in lieu of the traditional ships Ingalls has built for decades. Anderson said he took a trip to the Gulf Coast since taking over PEO Ships earlier this summer, and he said he didn't realize how many shipbuilders were there that not only work on Navy warships but auxiliaries, foreign military sales ships and commercial ships for the oil and energy sector, for example. These yards would all be set up well to compete for small or unmanned ships for the Navy, but they might be going up against large yards if they find themselves needing the work, too. “Not knowing what the force structure analysis is going to tell us we need, I think it's hard to say at this point, because I think the big yards could flex, absolutely. Are they better aligned at the moment to build the larger ships that they're building? Yes. We'll just have to see how the [FSA] plays out,” Anderson said. The two situations come together in an interesting way: the admirals suggested separately that, in a time of war, small repair yards could be called upon to help build ships; and they suggested that large yards could look to repair work to supplement any lost shipbuilding work – highlighting the predicament the entire enterprise finds itself in, with capacity and capability not necessarily matching up to needs and budgets. Prior to Ver Hage's comments about lack of ship repair capacity for peacetime, let alone wartime, event moderator and Hudson Institute senior fellow Bryan Clark said, “the commandant of the Marine Corps recently talked about the concern he has regarding the ability of the Navy shipbuilding industrial base and ship repair industrial base to restore or rebuild the fleet in the face of losses that might occur in a conflict. And he talked about how this is an element of deterrence: if you don't have the ability to sustain a fight, a protracted fight, then perhaps your adversaries think they can wait you out or just push through and eventually you'll get to the point where you can no longer continue the combat.” Breaking Defense first reported on these comments Commandant Gen. David Berger made in a draft document. In response, Anderson said that about two years ago Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts got a group together to talk about wartime planning for the industrial base, and what work could be done now to be better prepared in case of war. USNI News previously reported that much of that planning work was put to use when the COVID-19 pandemic started, with the Navy already having a good idea of where work is done and what vulnerabilities exist, thanks to this ongoing effort. Anderson said that some of the questions asked during this planning effort were how shipbuilders could rapidly deliver ships nearing the end of their construction, how they could accelerate construction of hulls still in early phases of work, and how ship repair companies could contribute to a ramped-up shipbuilding effort if called upon to do so. On the other hand, John Rhatigan, chairman of the Marine Machinery Associations, said during the discussion that shipbuilding yards ought to be contributing to the repair effort as well to address the deficit of repair capacity. Noting that submarine builders take on submarine overhauls to supplement their construction work, he said, “there are shipyards that maybe don't think they're back into overhaul mode, but they probably need to. I'll give you a good example: Bath Iron Works. They should be able to do overhauls and new construction at the same time. They just went through a strike and they're behind schedule and things like that, but I think they can get back on schedule and I think they should be available, or trying to make themselves available, for overhaul work.” He said these yards in the past have been swayed against doing repair work because, depending how the contract is structured, it could be a financially risky venture, especially given how common it is for growth work to appear once an overhaul is started. “I think there's capacity there that hasn't been tapped yet,” Rhatigan said. “I know that people have tried in the past, and just because someone said no in 2018 doesn't mean they're going to say no in 2021.” https://news.usni.org/2020/08/26/lack-of-u-s-warship-repair-capacity-worrying-navy

  • Australian Defence Force ditches European helicopters

    December 13, 2021 | International, Aerospace

    Australian Defence Force ditches European helicopters

    Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton announced Friday Canberra is seeking to buy up to 40 Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk battlefield helicopters to replace the Australian Defence Force's fleet of NH Industry MRH 90 Taipan Multi Role Helicopters.

  • USAF Launches Effort To Speed Up Commercial EVTOL Market

    February 26, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    USAF Launches Effort To Speed Up Commercial EVTOL Market

    Graham Warwick The U.S. Air Force has detailed its plans to accelerate the emerging advanced air mobility market, and potentially become an early adopter of electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing (eVTOL) vehicles, but is making clear it does not intend to set requirements or fund development. Instead, the service wants to help developers along the way to commercial certification and volume production by providing testing resources and possibly enabling a near-term government public-use market for their vehicles in advance of FAA certification. The Air Force's Agility Prime program office published its “innovative capabilities opening” (ICO) on Feb. 25, establishing a contracting framework for prototyping projects designed to show whether, as their developers claim, eVTOL vehicles can revolutionize mobility, particularly logistics. Under the ICO framework, which will remain open until Feb. 28, 2025, the service plans to release a series of solicitations for different “areas of interest” (AOI). The first of these—AOI #1, or the “Air Race to Certification”—was also released on Feb. 25. Other AOIs could range from autonomy to manufacturing. Under AOI #1, the Air Force office plans to issue contracts to produce test reports that will substantiate company claims for their eVTOL vehicles. Based on a test report, the service could proceed to the next step, potentially an early procurement, says Col. Nathan Diller, Agility Prime integrated product team lead. “They can leverage that test report to get military certification that would allow near-term government use cases that would accelerate commercial certification, potentially providing revenue and data that accelerates the broader adoption of the technology,” he says. The Air Force has not established explicit requirements for an eVTOL. Instead, it has launched studies into potential missions in which commercial vehicles—both passenger-carrying and larger unmanned aircraft—could be used. These could include distributed logistics, medevac, firefighting, search-and-rescue, disaster relief and facility security. The Air Force is aiming for an initial operating capability (IOC) in fiscal 2023 with a “handful-plus” of vehicles in a squadron. “We have begun a series of studies to look at the business case associated with these different missions, and we have started looking at some basic constructs for what these units [operating the aircraft] might look like,” Diller says. “They may be very different units to what we are doing now.” To qualify under the first AOI, companies must have flown their vehicles by Dec. 17, 2020. Diller says some eVTOL developers are ready to submit test reports and move on to the next step, while others will take longer. “That gives us a year to see which companies are ready, but we feel we are in a position to award contracts quickly.” Agility Prime was provided with $10 million in funding in fiscal 2019 and $25 million in 2020. This is not money requested in the Air Force's fiscal 2021 budget, but Diller says there is a “strong desire and intent to fund” the program in fiscal 2022 and future years to get to an IOC in fiscal 2023. The AOI calls for vehicles that can carry three to eight people, with a range greater than 200 mi., speed faster than 100 mph and endurance of more than 60 min. As well as passenger-carrying eVTOLs, Diller says Agility Prime is looking at unmanned cargo aircraft heavier than 1,320 lb. because the other services are focusing below that weight. The Agility Prime ICO is structured to encourage participation by smaller companies and nontraditional defense contractors, but not exclude traditional Pentagon suppliers that are innovating, he says. Bidders are required to cover at least a third of the cost of the prototype project themselves. The objective of Agility Prime is to “catalyze the commercial market by bringing our military market to bear,” Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper said at a roundtable on Feb. 21. “It's equally important to make sure that commercial market catalyzes first in the U.S.,” he added. “That's equally as important as providing the capability to the warfighter. What we don't want to happen is what happened with the small drone migration to China,” he said. “It was a commercial technology, the Pentagon didn't take a proactive stance on it, and now most of that supply chain has moved to China.” U.S. government agencies have banned the use of Chinese-made drones, citing security concerns. “If we had realized that commercial trend and shown that the Pentagon is willing to pay a higher price for a trusted supply-chain drone, we probably could have kept part of the market here and not had to go through the security issues we have now,” he said. “Agility Prime is saying we are not going to let that happen again,” Roper said. Diller says the Air Force is not imposing military requirements on eVTOL developers because it wants to benefit from the low acquisition and operating costs and potentially high production volumes that could come out of the commercial market. “Since we are not putting research and development money in this, we are going to fall into accordance with what the industry partners want to do,” he says. “Our intent is that any testing they do with us will be something that takes them along the path to commercial certification and is not diverting them.” If the Air Force were to set requirements and fund development, “we would feel we are putting at risk a very large market that would allow us to eventually capitalize on that affordable quantity based on potential mass production at an automobile rate,” he says. https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/air-warfare-symposium/usaf-launches-effort-speed-commercial-evtol-market

All news