To keep up with our competitors, America must boost shipbuilding

On the same subject

• 

  January 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Lockheed adds Dunford, former top US military officer, to board

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin has added Joe Dunford, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to its board of directors, the company announced Friday. Dunford, the Marine general who retired out of service at the end of September 2019, will become the 12th member of Lockheed's board come Feb. 10 of this year. He will serve on the board's Classified Business and Security Committee as well as its Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. "General Dunford's service to the nation at the highest levels of military leadership will bring valuable insight to our board," Marillyn Hewson, chairman, president and CEO of Lockheed Martin, said in a statement. "His experience in complex, global operations and risk management, including cybersecurity threats, is a tremendous asset and will enhance board oversight in key business areas." Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor, with $50.5 billion in defense revenue in fiscal 2018. The announcement may spur renewed calls by good government groups to close the so-called “revolving door” between the Pentagon and the defense industry, an issue that has taken on new life given the number of industry executives who have joined the defense department under President Donald Trump. That list is most prominently headlined by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a former Raytheon executive, and Pat Shanahan, a Boeing executive who was confirmed as deputy secretary of defense and then served six months as the acting secretary to start 2019 before departing the building. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a top nominee for the Democratic nomination for president, has called for a ban on defense primes hiring senior Pentagon officials and officers for four years after they leave retire. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/01/25/lockheed-adds-dunford-former-top-us-military-officer-to-board

• 

  February 16, 2021 | International, Aerospace

  Sikorsky to upgrade HH-60W helo to improve on 2012 baseline capabilities

  by Gareth Jennings The US Air Force (USAF) is to contract Sikorsky to upgrade its HH-60W Jolly Green II combat search and rescue (CSAR) helicopter to improve on the 2012 requirements baseline. The service disclosed on 11 February that the manufacturer is to bring the capabilities of the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) up to today's specifications, ahead of the commencement of full rate production in fiscal year 2022. “The current system specification reflects a 2012 requirements baseline which was defined and frozen prior to the 2014 CRH contract awarded for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase,” the USAF said in its sole-source justification document posted on the beta.sam.gov US government procurement website. “During the last five years of EMD execution, the original CRH requirements baseline has evolved as a result of changes in threat conditions and evolving mission requirements. The response to this operational need is the driver for the continuance of new capability development and integration into the CRH baseline.” In response to this requirement, the USAF is to award Sikorsky a USD980.7 million contract over a five-year ordering period, with the work itself to run for seven years. News of the planned award came some 16 months after the USAF issued a request for information (RFI) on 1 October 2019 to assess the ability of companies and industry at large to perform development, integration, verification, production, and installation of a broad spectrum of capability upgrades for the CSAR helicopter, which at that time had only recently been cleared to enter into low-rate initial production (LRIP). https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/sikorsky-to-upgrade-hh-60w-helo-to-improve-on-2012-baseline-capabilities

• 

  January 13, 2021 | International, Aerospace

  Lawsuit threatens $23B weapons sale to UAE

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― A small, 2-year-old nonprofit think tank has taken a step that most advocacy organizations never dare try: It has sued the U.S. State Department to derail a $23 billion arms sale to the United Arab Emirates. In a legal claim announced last month, the New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs asserted that the Trump administration failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision to sell F-35 fighter jets and other weapons to the UAE, which places it in breach of the Administrative Procedure Act. It has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to find the sale invalid. The case is unusual, as is the theory of the case, but so is the Trump administration's approach to the sale, said Brittany Benowitz, a legal expert on human rights and arms trade. Such legal challenges rarely succeed, but if this one does, it could halt the deal even if Washington and Abu Dhabi follow through with plans to sign contracts in the waning days of the Trump administration. “If you can say this deal was executed improperly and the contractor was on notice of that, which they are, then I think you can say it's possible to stop the sale before delivery,” Benowitz said. The State Department declined to comment on the pending litigation, in line with its policy. The new lawsuit against the State Department came after a failed attempt in Congress to block the sale of 50 Lockheed Martin-made F-35 aircraft, 18 General Atomics-made MQ–9B Reaper drones and Raytheon Technologies-made munitions. The Senate narrowly rejected a challenge to the sale amid arguments from the administration that the sales would make the UAE more interoperable with partners and defend itself from “heightened threats from Iran.” Opponents said the fast-tracked process was incomplete, leaving questions about the security of U.S. weapons technology, the potential of sparking a Middle Eastern arms race, and the potential for the weapons to be used in Yemen and Libya; these arguments were echoed in the lawsuit. The State Department came under scrutiny for irregularities in a previous sale. Its inspector general, who was later fired, found that a separate “emergency” sale of $8 billion in precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia and the UAE failed to “fully assess” or mitigate the risk of civilian casualties in Yemen. To boot, Saudi Arabia and the UAE reportedly breached arms sale agreements with the U.S. by transferring American materiel to al-Qaida-linked fighters and other militant factions in Yemen. Lawmakers have also called for an an investigation into reporting that the UAE may have transferred American-made Javelin anti-armor missiles to the Libyan National Army in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. “What we're saying is that the State Department rushed this through without congressional oversight, they didn't follow their own rules and they didn't apply the same metrics that would guide approval to others,” said Justin Russell, the director of the New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs. The organization conducts advocacy and research on the conflicts in Libya and Yemen. “Congress tried to block [the sale] on the same merits and when that legislation failed, we said, ‘Wait a minute, we've got to stand up and do something.'” The Administrative Procedure Act allows a court to “hold unlawful and set aside any agency action ... found to be in arbitrary, capricious, an abseils of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Here, the lawsuit argues the State Department didn't find, as required under the Arms Export Control Act, that the sale “will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace” ― or present “a reasoned explanation” for its actions as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. In 2019, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade won a U.K. Court of Appeal ruling to ban new arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The government has since renewed sales, and CAAT applied for judicial review into the legality of the U.K. government's decision to renew arms sales to Saudi Arabia. In the U.S., there has not been a successful court case of targeting government-to-government sales in recent years, according to Benowitz. What's also unusual about the New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs' approach is that it doesn't rely on a human rights argument but rather points to aberrations in the process ― particularly past end-use violations that ought to have have disqualified the UAE, she said. “There have been court challenges to arms sales in the past on human rights grounds, but this challenge on national security grounds under the Administrative Procedure Act is unprecedented,” she said. “It's rare because we have never had a record of irregularities like the one we have now.” By Benowitz's reckoning, if a finalized deal is invalidated in the courts and it is found that the deal never should have been entered in the first place, its unlikely the U.S. could be penalized financially by the UAE. “To get a remedy, or damages, under contract law, you have to have ‘clean hands,' so it would be difficult for the Emiratis to recoup,” she said. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/01/12/lawsuit-threatens-23b-weapons-sale-to-uae