U.S. Air Force Contracts Lockheed Martin To Continue GPS Ground Control System Sustainment

On the same subject

• 

  March 4, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Nearly All the F-35 Jet Engines Ordered Last Year Arrived Late

  By Anthony Capaccio Nearly all the engines ordered for the next-generation F-35 jet were delivered late last year as the Pratt & Whitney unit of United Technologies Corp. struggled to solve nagging difficulties with parts and suppliers, according to the Pentagon. About 85% of the engines for the stealthy fighter were delivered late in 2019, the Defense Department's F-35 program office reported, adding that Pratt & Whitney did manage to deliver more engines than required. The tardiness figure was in line with data from 2018, but up from 48% and 58% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. “In general, the monthly schedule performance continues to be impacted by issues with parts and suppliers which the program office is monitoring closely,” the program office said in statement Tuesday. Pratt & Whitney “continues to perform reviews” within its expansive production chain and “has made some progress but more progress is needed to meet the monthly schedule,” it added. Engine delivery issues are just one problem that has plagued the jet's manufacturing ahead of a key decision expected in the next year on whether to move ahead into full-rate production on the $428 billion F-35 program. The fighter has also been flagged for breaking down too often, carrying a 25mm gun that doesn't shoot accurately and having shortages in its supply chain for spare parts from tire assemblies to seats. Some of the problems have since been fixed. Nevertheless, the jet is a key part of a broader weapons modernization effort meant to bolster not just the U.S. military but those of key allies from Poland to Japan. As the sole provider of F-35 engines, Pratt & Whitney and its subcontractors are in line to collect as much as $66 billion of the total jet contract. Congress has approved about $27 billion to date for F-35 engines. But the eventual decision on full-rate production means Pratt & Whitney needs to show it can ramp up production effectively. Overall, 128 of 150 engines delivered last year arrived late, eight arrived on time and 14 came in ahead of schedule, according to the F-35 program office. Of 93 engines in the 11th low-rate production contract bloc, 90 arrived an average of 41 days late. In a statement, the company emphasized that it “exceeded its annual F-35 engine delivery commitment” for 2019. “This represents a 60% year-over-year increase in deliveries. We remain laser-focused on working closely” with the program office and “our supply base to achieving on-time delivery in 2020.” Pratt & Whitney remains under a high-level “Corrective Action Request” that the Defense Contract Management Agency issued in December 2018, citing “poor delivery performance.” The agency said it's evaluating the company's corrective actions and may rescind the CAR by month's end. The company has made improvements in four areas, including deploying “focus teams” to subcontractors for ensuring adequate “critical hardware” and qualifying additional suppliers, DCMA said. Asked if the company was ready for accelerated full-rate engine production, the agency said “as the P&W suppliers demonstrate success in meeting their contract delivery rate the probability of P&W meeting their full-rate production level increases. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-03/nearly-all-the-f-35-jet-engines-ordered-last-year-arrived-late

• 

  July 10, 2019 | International, Other Defence

  New small arms course launches to prepare Army Reserve for combat, increase survivability

  By: Kyle Rempfer A new Army Reserve small arms trainer course that teaches gunnery and range operations to soldiers has been launched at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Still in its pilot program phase, the course is intended to field weapons subject matter experts at the unit level and increase weapons proficiency among the Reserve force, according to the 88th Readiness Division. The new course lasts 12 days and prepares troops to train their fellow reservists as well as develop year-round training calendars for their home units. The Army Reserve Small Arms Trainer Course focuses on six common weapons: the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, MK19 grenade launcher, M240B machine gun, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, M4 carbine/M16 rifle and the Beretta M9. The effort is also part of Army Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. Charles Luckey's larger push to make his component a more combat-ready force through efforts like Task Force Cold Steel — a series of mounted and ground crew-served weapons qualification events. “This is about building the most capable combat-ready and lethal federal reserve force in the history of the United States,” Luckey said at a Cold Steel training event in February. “This is about building the capacity, the capability, the bench strength of America's Army Reserve to train itself.” At the new course, instructors will teach preliminary marksmanship instruction on each weapon and their optics, as well as teach maintenance for each system. The course will also teach soldiers how to operate weapons ranges and how to procure ammunition through classroom instruction, simulations training and live-fire qualification. “This course is a true train-the-trainers program,” Master Sgt. Howard Griffith, course manager, said in an Army news article. “We take select soldiers from around the entire Army Reserve and provide them with the knowledge and skills to return to their units and educate their fellow soldiers.” An increase in weapons proficiency correlates with an increase in survivability in combat, which ultimately helps win battles, the news article states. The pilot program was designed by instructors from the Army Reserve Competitive Marksmanship Program and will be taught by instructors from Task Force Cold Steel. The Army National Guard and the active-duty force have had similar weapons proficiency courses for many years, and the Reserve component's own version was overdue. If successful, the long-term desire is to keep the new trainer course permanently at Fort McCoy. The installation has state-of-the-art ranges available for year-round training and is conveniently located in the center of the United States, making it easily accessed by vehicle, rail or air, according to the Army. To learn how your unit can take advantage of the Small Arms Trainer Course, contact Task Force Cold Steel at 608-388-4645 or email usarmy.usarc.84-tng-cmd.list.ocs-fy18-s3@mail.mil. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/07/09/new-small-arms-course-launches-to-prepare-army-reserve-for-combat-increase-survivability/

• 

  December 14, 2017 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  American exodus? 17,000 US defense suppliers may have left the defense sector

  WASHINGTON — A large number of American companies supplying the U.S. military may have left the defense market, according to a study announced Thursday, raising alarm over the health and future of the defense industrial base. The Center for Strategic and International Studies study said the number of first-tier prime vendors declined by roughly 17,000 companies, or roughly 20 percent, between 2011 and 2015. The full study, due to be released in January, was authored by CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group Director Andrew Hunter, Deputy Director Gregory Sanders and Research Associate Rhys McCormick. It was sponsored by the Naval Postgraduate School and co-produced by the Aerospace Industries Association, which released an executive summary on Dec. 14, the day of its annual aerospace and defense luncheon in Washington. The authors, who used publicly available contract data, write that it's unclear — due to the limitations in the subcontract database —whether the companies have exited the industrial base entirely or still perform work at the lower tiers. “There is no doubt that a huge portion of the recent turbulence in the defense industrial base has taken place among subcontractors, who are less equipped to tolerate the defense marketplace's funding uncertainly and often onerous regulatory regime — yet it remains extremely difficult to determine the real impact of these conditions on subcontractors,” the authors conclude. Further details may yet be revealed by the Trump administration's ongoing review of the resiliency of the defense-industrial base. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' assessment is due to President Donald Trump by mid-April 2018. The CSIS summary links 2011 Budget Control Act caps, subsequent short-term budget agreements, and Congress' “unpredictable and inconsistent” appropriations process to the “lost suppliers, changes in competition and market structure, and other turmoil” it found. The years 2011-2015 are considered a period of defense drawdown and decline. The authors, rather than focus strictly on the total decline of defense contract obligations over the entire period, chose to chart the “whipsaw” effect that struck certain sectors of the industrial base amid the imposition of sequestration in 2013 and subsequent budget caps. Though the defense budget had been declining in the years leading up to the Budget Control Act, the implementation of an across-the-board sequestration budget cut in 2013 “marked a severe market shock that had a considerable impact on the defense industry,” the authors say. Compared to the pre-drawdown fiscal 2009-2010 period, the start of the drawdown in fiscal 2011-2012, average annual defense contract obligations dropped 5 percent. When sequestration was triggered in fiscal 2013, defense contract obligations dropped 15 percent from the previous year. Average annual defense contract obligations fell 23 percent during the so-called BCA decline period, fiscal 2013-2015. The Army, which has a checkered modernization history, bore the brunt of the decline. Average annual defense contracts dropped 18 percent at the start of the drawdown, then 35 percent during the BCA decline period. Missile defense contract obligations actually gained 7 percent at the start of the drawdown and then dropped only 3 percent under budget caps. During his presidency, Barack Obama reversed course from early cuts to missile defense to spur the development and deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson reacted to the internally circulated findings earlier this month, saying budget cuts are responsible for the industry being “more fragile and less flexible than I've seen it, and I've been in the industry many, many years.” “What we've seen in the industry, I'll give you an example at Lockheed Martin: At the outset of budget cuts we were about 126,000 employees; today we are at 97,000 employees,” Hewson said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California. “Our footprint has shrunk dramatically. We see some of our small and medium-sized business, some of the components that we need, there's one, maybe two suppliers in that field where there were many, many more before.” Budget cuts have squeezed the Defense Department to unduly prioritize low-cost contracts over innovation and investment. Cost “shootouts,” she said, are endangering the military's plans to grow in size and lethality. AIA Vice President for National Security Policy John Luddy said companies have coped through a variety of “healthy efficiencies,” such as mergers and acquisitions, consolidating facilities, exploring shared services, and offloading certain contracting activities. “Our companies have done an amazing job of managing the downturn, they've pulled all kinds of levels to make it work, they've shown the ingenuity of the American free market system,” Luddy said. “Nonetheless, the uncertainty of the budgeting process has become a huge challenge for us.” Army Secretary Mark Esper, formerly of Raytheon, warned lawmakers at a Senate hearing Dec. 7 that uneven funding is driving small suppliers — “an engine of innovation” — out of the defense sector. “If you're a small mom and pop shop out there, and I'm referring to my industry experience, it's hard for them to survive in the uncertain budgetary environment,” Esper said. “And we risk losing those folks who may over time decide that they're going to get out of the defense business and go elsewhere. So that's a big threat to our supply chains.” But the CSIS study found that small vendors either increased their share of platform portfolio contract obligations or held steady, while large and medium vendors were most harmed by the market shock from sequestration and the defense drawdown. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/12/14/american-exodus-17000-us-defense-suppliers-may-have-left-the-defense-sector/