August 16, 2019 | International, Land
By: Jen Judson
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The new U.S. Missile Defense Agency director is opposed to the transfer of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System, or THAAD, to the Army — something Senate authorizers want to do this year in the fiscal 2020 authorization bill.
Talk of transferring THAAD to the Army has been ongoing for roughly a decade. The Army officially operates the system, but the MDA conducts its development and continued modernization.
Both MDA and Army leadership have said if Congress were to authorize a transfer, they would not oppose the move as long as the necessary funding is made available and not taken from other portfolios within the service.
But there's still a fear that programs transferred to the services is where they go to die, either in their entirety or at least the chance of continued system modernization. For instance, there could be a plan down the road to extend the range of the THAAD interceptor.
Historically, at times, when programs are transferred, funding meant to further improve systems has been cannibalized for more pressing, immediate needs within the armed services.
“Why would we hand that off to the Army or Air Force, that sort of transfer to a service where it won't be prioritized? They have many other priorities,” MDA Director Vice Adm. Jon Hill told Defense News in an exclusive interview at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.
“I don't like organizational experiments on programs that are delivering more fighting capability,” he added.
The challenge
Before Congress, the military or the MDA consider transferring such a capability, a better definition for “transfer of services” must be ironed out, Hill said. He considers defining this one of his top challenges.
“It gets suspicious when we don't have a fully defined term because all it really results in is fracturing of a program during a time where it's most critical to have those programs stable and taking care of the war fighter,” Hill said. “There's been a lot of discussion about the THAAD and the SM-3 [missile] transfer to the services. What does that mean?”
The definition of transfer “ranges everything from a full-up transfer of the system over to the service, which assumes that the system is static and how it's designed today is how it's going to be designed forever,” Hill said.
If it means transferring operations and sustainment responsibility, and then “put that in the done pile. The Army invests heavily in the operations and sustainment of that. I don't know what more we would want out of them,” he said.
The argument
MDA is examining whether it is doing enough to support the Army's successful operation and sustainment of the system, he noted, such as whether the service has the right logistics line in place and the right training.
A THAAD transfer could also be disruptive to production at a time when THAAD interceptors are in high demand and orders continue to grow.
Even if the transfer of THAAD meant the service would responsible for interceptor procurement, the MDA would have to break contracts for the Army to take over, which could result in delayed production, according to Hill.
“We know right now, in today's operational environment, we need more,” Hill said. “So that makes no sense to me.”
And for Hill, a THAAD transfer is a slippery slope. If the Army took complete control of the batteries, “then there's this discussion, ‘Well, let's include the TPY/2 radar and let's walk it a little bit further and let's take the homeland defense radars that are deployed globally that have a totally different mission.”
The resistance to transfer THAAD in its entirety is not a sign of a resistance to transfer where it makes sense, Hill noted.
“I often hear that we don't know how to transfer. Well look at the Aegis ships today. Navy procures those ships with ballistic missile defense capability. The Navy has come in and said: ‘Hey, we're going to build a multimission radar to include BMD capability in a SPY-6 [radar],' ” Hill said. “Man, what's wrong with that? That's fantastic.”
MDA has also fully transferred the Patriot air and missile defense system to the Army. “Where Patriot is different, is it's a multimission system,” Hill said. “They have air defense as part of the maneuver force. It's sort of like cruise missile defense on a ship. We don't need to take over the Navy's cruise missile defense. ... Patriot is sort of the same thing.”
THAAD is part of a wider integrated missile defense system, he added.
“THAAD has to stay in MDA ... for the interoperability and integration into the other domains from across the services," Riki Ellison, chairman and founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, told Defense News. "THAAD is not an Army-centric weapon system. It should never be deployed as a standoff, alone weapon system.”
The Joint Urgent Operational Need out of the Korean theater that calls for the integration of THAAD and Patriot is a prime example, Ellison noted. “MDA is the only one that has cross-domain [Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications] development and operational development as proven with the [Ground-Based Midcourse Defense] System," he said.
Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said: “I'm afraid the Army won't fund THAAD if it's their responsibility. We need to free up more money in MDA so it can focus on research and development, so we have a dilemma. Something has to give.”
Short of the defense secretary directing the services to fund and support systems like THAAD, Heinrichs said, “they're probably just going to have to stay in MDA. That means we need a much bigger top line in MDA ... to fund the new technologies needed for advanced threats, especially.”
The agency is currently advising the Pentagon and Congress on the right plan for where THAAD should live.
“That's something that we have to work internally," Hill noted, "and so we need to get our act together on both sides.”
February 3, 2023 | International, Other Defence
Inking multiyear procurement contracts is a good first step towards reinvigorating the defense industrial base, especially when it comes to munitions.
April 1, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Michael Bruno Lockheed Martin Chairman, CEO and President Marillyn Hewson became the prime example of how to stumble into the corner office of the Pentagon's top contractor and still provide laudable business results. Now, as she hands off the reins to an enigmatic successor, Lockheed stakeholders hope the uncertainty ahead will be just as lucrative. On March 16, the Bethesda, Maryland-based prime—the largest contractor to the U.S. Defense Department by annual sales—surprised many followers with the news that current Lockheed board member James “Jim” Taiclet, Jr. will become CEO and president on June 15, while Hewson becomes executive chairman. Lockheed also promoted Frank St. John, current executive vice president of the company's Rotary and Mission Systems (RMS) division, to become chief operating officer (COO)—a role that Hewson technically held last, and briefly, before her January 2013 appointment as chief executive. Before that, the COO role was mostly held by Chris Kubasik prior to his downfall at Lockheed. Stephanie Hill, now senior vice president for enterprise business transformation, was appointed to succeed St. John as executive vice president for RMS. These appointments also are effective June 15. Hewson is 66 years old and Taiclet is 59. The company, which does not have a retirement rule, had not announced a formal transition plan or successor process. Nevertheless, industry insiders were watching movements—such as St. John's rise and recent board appointments—and analysts said they assume the transition was planned before the ongoing COVID-19 crisis erupted. While the announcement was a surprise, the timing was not—due to Hewson's age and the fact that Lockheed ended 2019 with a record $144 billion backlog of work and a stock price that has more than tripled under Hewson, including the recent COVID-19-related pullback. Still, many observers are intrigued by the selection. “While Marillyn's retirement has been in the cards for a while, we were not expecting Lockheed to go outside the company for its new CEO,” say analysts at Vertical Research Partners. “Taiclet has an impressive pedigree based on his resume, but from an A&D perspective, he is an unknown quantity. . . . But with Marillyn sticking around as chairman, and a very experienced cohort of senior Lockheed managers, we are not expecting there to be any revolutionary change as a result of this appointment.” Cowen analysts also noted that St. John's appointment as COO further bookends Taiclet with experienced Lockheed managers. St. John, 53, joined Lockheed more than 30 years ago and as COO is naturally positioned as a potential future CEO, analysts say. Taiclet is currently chairman, president and CEO of American Tower, a real estate investment holding company and owner/operator of wireless and broadband communications networks, where he has held the executive reins since 2003. He joined that company in 2001 and, according to Lockheed, is credited with guiding American Tower's transformation from a U.S.-centric focus to a multinational business outlook. Analysts said he also was central in leading mergers and acquisitions as part of the company's expansion. American Tower announced an immediate replacement for Taiclet but said he will remain chairman and an advisor through June 14. Taiclet previously served as president of Honeywell Aerospace Services and before that was vice president for engine services at the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies (UTC). He also worked as a consultant at McKinsey & Co., specializing in telecommunications and aerospace strategy and operations. He is a retired U.S. Air Force pilot and Persian Gulf War veteran. Loren Thompson, a Lexington Institute consultant to Lockheed, says Hewson's selection of Taiclet seems calculated to continue her emphasis on tight financial management and good customer relations while positioning the leading prime for a changing demand environment. “That environment will be characterized by two shifts from previous years,” Thompson writes. “First, the defense budget will enter a flat to declining period very different from the spending increases of the early Trump [administration] years. Second, the preference of military customers for nontraditional suppliers who think like entrepreneurial enterprises rather than government contractors will continue to grow.” Hewson's selection of Taiclet also is telling because she has won the respect of many industry insiders, analysts and advisers. While unplanned, Hewson's tenure as CEO was deemed successful by most. “Hewson's tenure is known for operational execution with such programs as the F-35, while having a successful oversight in maintaining key businesses—such as in the evolving area of space with wins such as Next-Gen OPIR and GPS IIIF,” say Jefferies analysts. Company sales grew at a 5% compound annual growth rate from $45.4 billion in 2013 to an expected $63.3 billion this year. Taiclet's takeover sounds to many like more of the same—but different. “This is the first time Lockheed Martin has promoted someone who did not rise through the corporation to be president and CEO,” writes Capital Alpha Partners analyst Byron Callan. “We find it intriguing that he has a commercial background and wonder if that's not a different direction the company starts to explore in 2020-25.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/supply-chain/lockheed-signals-change-coming-new-ceo
December 3, 2023 | International, Land
The U.S. Air Force has eliminated Boeing from its competition to develop a successor to the E-4B Nightwatch, Boeing confirmed on Friday, shaking up the battle to build the next version of the aircraft known as the "Doomsday Plane" due to its ability to survive a nuclear war.