Back to news

August 19, 2019 | International, Naval

Questions about US Navy attack sub program linger as contract negotiations drag

By: David B. Larter

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is months behind schedule getting its latest batch of Virginia-class attack subs under contract, and no resolution appears imminent — leading to mounting concerns that delays on the Virginia will affect the Navy's top acquisition priority, the Columbia-class submarine.

The contract for the 10-ship Block V Virginia-class attack submarine was supposed to be signed in April, but Navy and industry sources say that there has been a lot of talk and little agreement between the service and the two shipbuilders, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Newport News.

Intended to integrate acoustic upgrades and an 84-foot section for additional strike missile tubes, the delayed contract for the Block V Virginias have instead turned into just the latest warning sign that all is not well in Virginia-land, as schedules have slipped and at least one of the builders is now bleeding profits. Furthermore, it's unclear what the Navy's buying profile for Block V will be, which is subject to both contract negotiations and Congressional action on the fiscal year 2020 budget.

The anxiety over Virginia delays, however, are less about Virginia, which is still a strong performing program — especially when compared with other programs such as the Ford-class carrier — but are more driven by the potential for compounding issues bleeding over into the Columbia-class. Both submarines will be drawing on the same workforce and supplier base, which is already showing signs of strain.

The Navy says the delays are part of ongoing negotiations and that the schedule should not be affected further since the Navy has already contracted for long-lead time materials, but with the first Columbia expected to be ordered in 2021, the service is facing the reality that it lacks a clear idea of the future of the Virginia program when it is preparing to launch Columbia.

The delays center on the integration of the Virginia payload module and just how many the Navy intends to buy. Until this year, the public plan was for Virginia Block V to be a 10-ship class, where the first boat would integrate the acoustic upgrades but the follow-on boats would all integrate the VPM, which is designed to triple the Virginia's Tomahawk payload capacity to 40 per hull. When the Pentagon's 2020 budget request dropped in March, the plan changed, with the total buy expanded to 11 hulls with eight VPM boats.

But according to sources who spoke to Defense News, the builder was laying the groundwork for the original plan, which the Navy had already purchased long-lead material toward. The confusion over just how many VPMs the Navy intends to buy has been a major sticking point in the negotiations, with sources telling Defense News that the number of VPMs could still end up as either eight or seven, or potentially even fewer.

Complicating matters further is that Congress has yet to weigh in on the fate of the 11th Block V boat, which would mean buying three Virginia's in one year, and some on Capitol Hill have voiced skepticism that the industrial base can support that

The Navy's top acquisition official, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Acquisition and Development James Geurts, is working toward a solution that will balance the needs of the Navy and the needs of the builders, his spokesman said.

Geurts "continues to work closely with the program team and industry on negotiating a Block V Multi-Year procurement contract that will be affordable, executable and supports the industrial base,” said Capt. Danny Hernandez. “He wants to ensure we are maximizing the use of taxpayer dollars while at the same time striving for an acceptable level of design and program risk.

“Additionally, during this period, the Navy is continuing to fund the shipbuilder for long lead time materials and pre-construction efforts to ensure submarine work continues at the shipyards and with the supplier base.”

‘Worst of Both Worlds'

With uncertainty looming about the future of the Virginia class, questions remain about whether that will bleed into Columbia, creating schedule risk that Navy leaders have said for years was untenable.

Congress has sought to ease the strain on the supplier base by offering money to help smaller vendors expand to meet demand. And in March, Geurts announced that he was standing up a new program executive officer for Columbia, citing the need to be proactive with any problems that might arise from the competing demands on the industrial base.

“These yards are integrated,” defense analyst Dan Goure, a former Bush Administration official who now works for The Lexington Institute, said in an April interview. “When you start messing with the other program on a short-notice basis, you risk the yards being able to deliver on time and at cost for multiple programs.

“In a sense you risk the worst of both worlds: You risk further perturbations in the Virginia class, and at the same time risk not being able to get Columbia out on time.”

Both General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls said in earnings calls they expect the Block V contract to be signed by the end of the year.


The setbacks seem to be compounding for the Virginia program. Welding issues on missile tubes destined for the Virginia Payload Module and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program have eaten into the schedule margin for both programs. And issues with the supplier base as well as the labor force have caused schedule delays.

Industry sources who spoke to Defense News said growing the Virginia-class program from one submarine per year to two submarines per year, which started with the budget in FY11, has put increasing strain on a diminished submarine supplier base, which has put pressure on schedules as the shipyards wait for parts.

Huntington Ingalls has dropped 23 percent of its profit margin on the Virginia-class program, according to a second-quarter earnings report analyzed by defense business analyst Jim McAleese. In an earnings call, Huntington Ingalls executives seemed to blame the drop on the schedule delays.

Two sources familiar with the issue said profit loss stemmed from labor force issues that resulted from a year-long delay in the Navy contracting for the carrier George Washington's mid-life refueling and overhaul. The delay caused Ingalls to lay off about 1,200 employees, which drew off workforce from the Virginia program because of labor union rules that say that the most recent hires must be laid off first.

Those rules forced Huntington Ingalls Industries to lay off workers who were working on the Virginia program, who in turn were then snapped up by other yards; Huntington Ingalls Industries then had to train new employees for the Virginia work.

Defense News reported in March that class-wide, Virginia is looking at four-to-seven month delays for delivery, which drives up labor costs.

Huntington Ingalls Industries chief financial officer Chris Kastner said on the call that getting the Virginia program back on schedule is a top priority.

“Especially when you're a in a serial production line like we are with the Virginia-class,” Kastner said. “If you start to have issues with schedule it does start to affect the synchronization of the line.

“We've been working pretty hard to reset that this year, given kind of where we started last year fourth quarter and we made great progress on that."

On the same subject

  • UK: Defence and Security Accelerator funding competitions

    November 1, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    UK: Defence and Security Accelerator funding competitions

    Details of our current, future and past funding competitions. Published 8 December 2016 Last updated 30 October 2018 — see all updates From: Defence and Security Accelerator and Ministry of Defence Contents Events and market interest activities (Open) Themed competitions (open now for application) Themed competitions (opening for applications soon) Past events and market interest activities (closed) Past themed competitions (closed) You can submit a Defence and Security Accelerator proposal either to our Open Call for Innovation or in response to the technical challenges in a specific themed competition, as detailed below. You can submit your themed competition proposal online once the full detailed competition document is published. Summary competition documents may be published a few weeks in advance of full competition document releases. Events and market interest activities (Open) Maximising Human Performance - Market Exploration 18 October 2018 DASA dial in event: many drones make light work competition 18 October 2018 Themed competitions (open now for application) The competitions below are in order of closing date, earliest at the top. Competition: predictive cyber analytics 6 September 2018 Competition: Biosensing across wide areas 31 August 2018 Competition: stopping it in its tracks 28 September 2018 Competition: Don't Blow It! Safely eliminating chemical and biological munitions on the battlefield 9 October 2018 Competition: many drones make light work phase 3 18 October 2018 Competition: Behavioural Analytics for Defence and Security 11 October 2018 Themed competitions (opening for applications soon) Please note we publish these summary documents ahead of publishing the full detailed competition documents to give potential applicants early information on the competition. Full documents are typically published within a couple of weeks of the summary documents. The competitions below are in order of closing date, earliest at the top. Competition: Tackling Knife Crime in the UK 30 October 2018

  • Defense Industry Wants To Maintain Momentum For European FCAS

    February 20, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Defense Industry Wants To Maintain Momentum For European FCAS

    German parliamentary approvals to fund the demonstrators for the European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) have been hailed as a major milestone, yet there appear to be plenty more dramas to come. Industry had been increasingly impatient over Berlin's political fumbling of support for the initial Phase 1A demonstration work, worth €155 million ($170 million), which is funded equally by Paris and Berlin. Contracts had been expected at last year's Paris Air Show but did not materialize; even a January deadline agreed to by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel came and went. That deadline followed warnings from industry. And at the end of January, the air chiefs of the French, Germany and Spanish air forces wrote jointly in the French newspaper Le Figaro, stressing the importance of the project and warning that it must progress or risk losing momentum. The partner countries want to bring the FCAS into front-line use in 2040. “This cooperation is essential for the development of competitive European air capabilities to guarantee the security and sovereignty of the countries of Europe,” the air chiefs wrote. “All this while we must intensify our multinational collaboration efforts, in order to encourage the development of a common strategic vision, contributing directly to the defense of Europe.” In the end, the nod from the Bundestag emerged just hours prior to the release of Airbus' 2019 results on Feb. 13. The funding pays for the first 18 months of work—Phase 1A—to develop the demonstrators and mature new technologies, and it will support work by prime contractors Dassault and Airbus as well as their partners MTU Aero Engines, MBDA, Safran and Thales. There will be four strands to the demonstration program, the most significant being the flight-testing of the fighter aircraft technology demonstrator representative of the Next-Generation Fighter (NGF) design, with Dassault acting as prime and Airbus as a main partner. The program will also deliver remote carriers, the reusable unmanned aircraft systems that will operate alongside the fighter as a loyal wingman or to provide electronic warfare or surveillance capability. Airbus will lead on the development of the remote carriers, with MBDA as a main partner. Airbus in conjunction with Thales will work on development of the combat cloud network that will connect the NGF with other platforms including the remote carriers as well as other fighters, tankers and intelligence-gathering assets, likely using advanced within- and beyond-line-of-sight communication methods. Meanwhile, the fighter demonstrator will use an engine featuring technologies planned for the future NGF powerplant. Work on this demonstrator engine-—likely based on the Safran M88 from the Dassault Rafale—will be led by Safran, with MTU as main partner. Airbus says a simulation environment will be jointly developed by the company as well to “ensure consistency between demonstrators.” The next step—Phase 1B-—is where the challenges could begin to mount, as it requires considerably more investment than 1A, likely well in excess of €1 billion ($1.1 billion), begging the question: If German politics can hobble progress over investments worth less than €100 million, what would the delays be if the investments required are 3-4 times as much? The next step—Phase 1B-—is where the challenges could begin to mount, as it requires considerably more investment than 1A, likely well in excess of €1 billion ($1.1 billion), begging the question: If German politics can hobble progress over investments worth less than €100 million, what would the delays be if the investments required are 3-4 times as much? Phase 1B also will involve the induction of Spanish companies into the program, including Madrid's chosen industry lead Indra, whose role has been protested by Airbus since the decision was announced last September. “We think it's a mistake to select Indra as the Spanish coordinator for the FCAS,” Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury told journalists, adding that the company lobbied for the decision to be reviewed. He contends that Indra lacks experience in the development of combat aircraft and the systems that will ultimately support the FCAS. Airbus had been widely expected to lead the program in Spain, given its past experience building the A400M in Seville and performing local assembly of the Eurofighter for the Spanish Air Force. “This is something we have shared with the Spanish government, and we have offered our hands to reverse the situation and make sure the best support is given from Spain to the FCAS and that Spain is getting the best from the FCAS,” Faury added. Spain does not seem to be listening, however. On Feb. 18, Madrid announced Spanish industry partners who will begin working on the program in support of joint concept studies with France and Germany before the summer, perhaps as early as May. According to the Spanish defense ministry, Airbus' Spanish business will support development of the fighter and low-observable technologies. ITP Aero, owned by Rolls-Royce, will support the engine development, with work on sensors and systems to be performed by Indra. A partnership of three companies—GMV, Sener Aeroespacial and Tecnobit-Grupo Oesia—will work on the remote carriers. “This industrial alliance has already been notified to Germany and France . . . so that negotiations can begin to meet the planned objectives and achieve the full integration of Spain into the NGWS [Next-Generation Weapons System] project before the summer of this year,” Spanish defense officials say. In the meantime, industry is looking for a smooth transition from Phase 1A to 1B in order to meet a target of flying a fighter demonstrator as early as 2026. “We shouldn't underestimate the huge progress which has been made for a program of that magnitude and complexity,” Faury told Aviation Week. “I am positive and optimistic [based] on the work which has been done over the last two years. We will play the role we think we have to play at each and every milestone of the program.” Phase 1B is expected to get underway in 2022. Prior to that, the three air chiefs have agreed to try to bring greater convergence between their operational needs and are hoping to sign a document “specifying this common vision” at the ILA Air Show in Berlin in May.

  • New Tool Developed to Improve Pilot Visibility

    August 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    New Tool Developed to Improve Pilot Visibility

    8/14/2020 By Connie Lee Special Operations Command and the Army are adopting new technology to improve visibility during flight operations in degraded conditions. Sierra Nevada Corp. was selected for the third phase of the degraded visual environment pilotage system competition following a 2015 airborne test. The company's most recent contract modification includes full-rate production, according to a company news release. Paul Bontrager, Sierra Nevada's vice president for government relations, said the system will help pilots operate in areas with limited visibility such as fog and dust. “We've always had a hard time flying in snow and flying in dirt,” he said. “In Army aviation we've been waiting for this technology to mature, and it has.” To enable pilots to maintain their situational awareness, the product has multiple features such as cameras and radars, he said. The system also has light detection and ranging. By combining sensors, a pilot is able to see a more accurate picture of the surrounding environment. Additionally, there are different versions of the system with varying amounts of sensors, he noted. Sierra Nevada can take data from multiple sensors and fuse the imagery onto a screen, he said. “A camera can do so much,” he said. “But then a lidar can actually paint the landing area and give a lot of detail about the surface.” The military has often had to fly in challenging operating environments, he noted. In the Middle East, pilots would often experience “brown out,” which occurs when visibility is impacted by dust and sand which has resulted in crashes, he said. “When we got embroiled in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was a significant thing,” he said. “We actually had more losses in the more recent years when it wasn't direct combat operations. We have more losses annually due to flying into planet Earth unintentionally than we do from enemy fire.” The degraded visual environment pilotage system is likely to be used in Army Chinooks and Black Hawks, and any aircraft with lifting capacity, he noted. “These are aircraft that have to land and take-off ... in all environments,” he said. “This is where it's most likely to be used initially ... and hopefully all aircraft will be outfitted with this technology eventually.”

All news