January 16, 2020 | International, Land

US Army cancels current effort to replace Bradley vehicle

By: Jen Judson

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is taking a step back on its effort to replace its Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle after receiving only one bid in its competitive prototyping program, but this does not mean the end of the road for the future optionally manned fighting vehicle, service leaders told reporters Jan. 16 at the Pentagon.

Until now, the Army has been tight-lipped ever since it appeared the competitive effort was no longer competitive, as the service had received only one prototype submission.

“Today the U.S. Army will cancel the current solicitation for the Section 804 Middle Tier acquisition rapid prototyping phase of the [optionally manned fighting vehicle]. Based on feedback and proposals received from industry, we have determined it is necessary to revisit the requirements, acquisition strategy and schedule moving forward,” said Bruce Jette, the Army's acquisition chief.

“Since its inception, the OMFV program has represented an innovative approach to Army acquisition by focusing on delivering an essentially new capability to armored brigade combat teams under a significantly reduced timeline compared to traditional acquisition efforts. The Army asked for a great deal of capability on a very aggressive schedule and, despite an unprecedented number of industry days and engagements to include a draft request for proposals over a course of nearly two years, all of which allowed industry to help shape the competition, it is clear a combination of requirements and schedule overwhelmed industry's ability to respond within the Army's timeline,” Jette said.

“The need remains clear. OMFV is a critical capability for the Army, and we will be pressing forward after revision."

In October, the Army ended up with only one bidder in the OMFV competition — General Dynamics Land Systems. The service had planned to hold a prototyping competition, selecting two winning teams to build prototypes with a downselect to one at the end of an evaluation period.

Defense News broke the news that another expected competitor — a Raytheon and Rheinmetall team — had been disqualified from the competition because it had failed to deliver a bid sample to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by the deadline.

A bellwether for what was to come in the prototyping competition happened earlier in the year when BAE Systems, which manufactures the Bradley, decided not compete, Defense News first reported.

And, according to several sources, Hanwha also considered competing but decided against the opportunity.

The CEO of BAE Systems' U.S.-based business, Jerry DeMuro, told Defense News in a recent interview that the company didn't regret its decision not to pursue OMFV as the requirements and schedule were previously laid out, but said it continues to talk to the Army about future opportunities.

“It was a very challenging program,” DeMuro said. “It always comes down to three things: requirements, schedule and funding. The schedule was very, very aggressive, especially early on, and at the same time trying to get leap-ahead technologies. There's a little bit of dichotomy there.

“The requirements that were being asked for was going to require, in our estimation, significantly more development that could not be done in that time frame and significantly more capital than the Army was willing to apply.”

Jette said the Army had a large number of vendors interested in the effort, hosted 11 industry days and had a number of draft requests for proposals on the street, but, he said, “it's always a challenge for industry. I was on the outside two years ago, and you get an RFP in after the discussions — it still cannot align with what you thought, and that is what you have to respond to is the RFP.”

The acquisition chief believes what happened in this case is there was “a large number interested, they started paring down, which started causing us some uncertainty about the competition, but we still had viable vendors in. And when you get out to actually delivering on those requirements, we had one vendor who had challenges meeting compliance issues with delivery, and the second vendor had difficulty meeting responsive issues, critical issues within the requirement — not knowing how to fulfill that.”

When pressed as to whether GDLS met the requirements with its bid sample, the Army's program executive officer for ground combat systems, Brig. Gen. Brian Cummings, who was present at the media roundtable along with the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team leader Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, said the Army could not discuss results and findings regarding the company's submission.

Several sources confirmed a letter was circulating around Capitol Hill from GDLS to the Army secretary that strongly urged the service to continue with the program without delay.

So now it's back to the drawing board to ensure the Army gets the prototyping program right.

Jette took pains to stress that the OMFV effort is not a failed program with the likes of Comanche, Future Combat Systems, Crusader or the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter. “This is a continuing program. This is an initial effort at trying to get to a programmatic solution yielded, input that we needed to evaluate, which said we needed to revise our approach, not abandon the program or that it was a failure.”

Some major failed programs in the past, Jette noted, were canceled after spending large amounts of money and still moving along even though problems were identified as the service proceeded. Crusader cost about $2 billion, Comanche about $6.9 billion and Future Combat Systems about $19 billion, Jette said.

“We've spent a very small amount of money in trying to get to where we are, and in fact a good bit of the technology development that was part of the assessment phase is still totally recoverable," he added.

Army Futures Command chief Gen. Mike Murray told the same group of reporters he is hesitant to call OMFV a program because it's a prototyping program, not a program of record. “We are still committed to this. This is like a tactical pause,” he said.

The effort so far “gave us a great deal of clarity in understanding what is truly doable,” Jette noted.

Army leaders said they would be unable to estimate how long its renewed analysis on the program might take before proceeding with a new solicitation to industry, or what that would mean for the program's schedule in its entirety. The original plan was to field OMFV in 2026.

Last month, Congress hacked funding for the OMFV prototyping program, providing $205.6 million in fiscal 2020, a reduction of $172.8 million, which would have made it impossible to conduct a competitive prototyping effort. What happens to that funding or congressional support for the overall program is unclear.

While sources confirmed to Defense News in early October that the failure with the OMFV prototyping effort revealed rifts between the acquisition community and the Army's new modernization command, Army Futures Command, Jette said while there is a bit of “scuffing here and there" the two organizations are working together “much better.”

Murray added it is his view that the acquisition community and Army Futures Command is moving forward as “one team” with “one goal in mind.”

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/01/16/army-takes-step-back-on-bradley-replacement-prototyping-effort/

On the same subject

June 18, 2019 | International, Aerospace

Robotic fighter jets could soon join military pilots on combat missions. Here's why.
By Jeremy Hsu Military pilots may soon have a new kind of wingman to depend upon: not flesh-and-blood pilots but fast-flying, sensor-studded aerial drones that fly into combat to scout enemy targets and draw enemy fire that otherwise would be directed at human-piloted aircraft. War planners see these robotic wingmen as a way to amplify air power while sparing pilots' lives and preventing the loss of sophisticated fighter jets, which can cost more than $100 million apiece. "These drone aircraft are a way to get at that in a more cost-effective manner, which I think is really a game-changer for the Air Force," says Paul Scharre, director of the technology and national security program at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Unlike slow-moving drones such as the Reaper and the Global Hawk, which are flown remotely by pilots on the ground, the new combat drones would be able to operate with minimal input from human pilots. To do that, they'd be equipped with artificial intelligence systems that give them the ability not only to fly but also to learn from and respond to the needs of the pilots they fly alongside. "The term we use in the Air Force is quarterbacking," says Will Roper, assistant secretary of the U.S. Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics and one of the experts working to develop the AI wingmen. "So the pilot is calling a play and knows how the systems will respond, but doesn't have to run the play for them." Training a robotic wingman Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory took an important step in the development of the AI wingmen by announcing its Skyborg program focused on developing the AI necessary to control the drones. As part of the program, Air Force pilots are already flying simulated missions alongside the drones. Roper says drones like the XQ-58A Valkyrie, a 652-mph drone built by Sacramento-based Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems with a projected manufacturing cost of $2 million apiece, could be AI-enabled and ready to fly within the next three years. "I wouldn't be surprised if the AI becomes tailored to individual pilots," Roper says. "They're actually training their own AI that augments their strengths and weaknesses." The U.S. military isn't alone in working to develop fighter drones. The Future Combat Air System is a $74-million, two-year deal between Germany and France aimed at building a next-generation fighter that would act as a flying command center for swarms of the fighter drones. And the Royal Australian Air Force has teamed up with Boeing to develop an AI-controlled drone with "fighter-like performance" that could accompany human-piloted aircraft or fly solo, Shane Arnott, director of Boeing Australia, says. The latter program plans for the first test flight to take place in 2020, with the goal of eventually selling the system worldwide. Partners or replacements? Given the rise of drones and AI, some experts question whether it makes sense to continue sending human pilots into harm's way. Why not have people on the ground or in an airborne command center give orders to swarms of combat drones — and let them carry out the mission on their own? "If you just make the human go fly in combat and their wingman is a drone, it doesn't change their risk profile at all — it only adds to their workload," says Missy Cummings, director of the humans and autonomy laboratory at Duke University and a former fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy. Scharre says the military still needs humans "forward in the fight" to guide combat drones. But he too sees a coming shift in the role of combat pilots — from flying a fighter jet and controlling its weapons systems to acting as a "battle manager" who decides what actions need to be taken by piloted and drone aircraft. That will likely include deciding when drones should use deadly force and selecting specific targets — decisions that the U.S. military is hesitant to hand over entirely to AI in part because research suggests AI is less skilled than humans at adapting to changing or uncertain situations. "A country that does not have pilots trained as good as we do might see appeal in shifting more and more of their mission to autonomous systems," Roper says. "Well, if they do that, I think we will have the advantage, because those autonomous systems acting alone will never be able to do what people teamed with machines are able to do." https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/robotic-fighter-jets-could-soon-join-military-pilots-combat-missions-ncna1014501
February 15, 2021 | International, Aerospace

The Five Most Important Facts About The F-35 Fighter
When the Clinton administration first conceived the notion of a “joint strike fighter” in 1995, it was the ideal solution to a host of military challenges. The basic idea was a family of highly survivable tactical aircraft that could share common technology to accomplish a dozen different missions for three U.S. military services. The Air Force would use it to replace Cold War F-16 fighters in aerial combat, bombing of ground targets and close air support of troops. The Navy would use it to extend the striking range of carrier-based aircraft. The Marines would use it to land on a dime anywhere expeditionary warfare was being waged. And everybody, including allies, would use it to collect vast amounts of intelligence that could be shared securely with coalition partners in future conflicts. From the beginning there were those who thought the joint strike fighter was an unrealistic dream—a project that expected too much from one plane, and would likely go into a tailspin as costs mounted. The program probably never would have gotten off the ground if military threats had been at a fever pitch. But the Soviet Union had collapsed and China was an afterthought at 3% of global GDP, so the Clinton administration decided to take a gamble. Today, that gamble has paid off. Hundreds of the planes, now designated F-35s, are operational with ten military services around the world. It took longer to come to fruition than originally planned, but in the end the joint strike fighter met its goals for survivability and versatility. That makes it one of the greatest engineering feats of the post-Cold War generation—a testament to the discipline and skill of the American aerospace industry. However, unless you've been following the F-35 program closely, you probably don't know most of this. President Trump entered office with little understanding of F-35, and only gradually came to grasp why it mattered so much to the joint force. The Biden administration hopefully will exhibit a smoother learning curve. Just to be on the safe side, though, it's worth repeating for the umpteenth time what makes F-35 unique. It really is invisible to enemies. When F-35 participates in training exercises, it typically defeats adversary aircraft at a rate of better than 20-to-1. It would do the same in wartime against Russian or Chinese fighters, because it was designed to absorb or deflect radar energy, so opposing pilots can't see it before they are shot down. In addition, F-35 is equipped with an advanced jamming system that tricks or suppresses hostile radars, both in the air and on the ground. Enemy radars might detect something in the distance, but they can't track it or target it. Also, F-35's powerful turbofan engine masks and dissipates heat before heat-seeking missiles can home in. It is more than a fighter. F-35 isn't just the most survivable combat aircraft ever built, it is also the most versatile. In its fighter role it can clear the skies of opposing aircraft that threaten U.S. forces. In its strike role, it can precisely destroy a vast array of targets on the ground (or at sea) with a dozen different smart bombs and missiles. But that is just the beginning. F-35's onboard sensors can collect and share intelligence from diverse sources across the spectrum. Its jamming system and air-to-air munitions make it a superior escort for less survivable aircraft. Its vertical-takeoff-and-landing variant can land anywhere Marines need it to be, while its Air Force version can carry nuclear weapons to provide regional deterrence. The cost of each plane has fallen steadily. As the government planned, the cost to manufacture each F-35 has fallen steadily with each new production lot. If fact, it has fallen at a faster rate than Pentagon estimators expected. At $78 million, the price tag for the Air Force variant in the latest lot is similar to that for the F-16 which the new plane will replace, even though it is much more capable. It is also far below the list price for commercial jetliners. The cost of keeping F-35s operational and ready for combat is also falling. The cost per flight hour for each plane has fallen 40% since 2015, and further savings are expected as maintenance procedures are refined. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -0.4% LMT -0.4% LMT -0.4% (a contributor to my think tank) has proposed a performance-based logistics package in which it would assume much of the financial risk for assuring the fighters are fit for combat. Many U.S. allies have committed to the program. A majority of America's most important allies have elected to replace their Cold War fighters with the F-35. These include Australia, Belgium, Demark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea and the United Kingdom. Several of these countries helped to pay for the plane's development, and now contribute to its production. Allies favor the F-35 for its price and performance, but also because coalition warfare unfolds more smoothly when participants share the same capabilities. The “interoperability” of so many friendly air forces flying the same highly survivable, versatile fighter will ease the challenge of executing complex war plans in the future. The domestic economic impact is huge. The F-35 airframe is integrated in Texas. Its engines are made in Connecticut. Its jamming system is manufactured in New Hampshire. Altogether, there are 1,800 U.S. based suppliers to the program sustaining over a quarter-million jobs. The annual economic impact of the program in the U.S. is estimated at $49 billion. Additional suppliers are located in allied countries. Whether at home or abroad, the vast scale of the F-35 program, with over 3,000 aircraft likely to be delivered, has a significant impact on communities. Although national security is the sole rationale for building the plane, it helps to pay for houses and schools in thousands of communities, and makes a sizable contribution to the U.S. trade balance. Because of F-35, America will dominate the global market for tactical aircraft through mid-century. Companies engaged in building F-35 contribute to my think tank. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/12/the-five-most-important-facts-about-the-f-35-fighter/?ss=aerospace-defense&sh=ee75fa760b57
October 18, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - October 16, 2018
DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ViON Corp., Herndon, Virginia, was awarded a competitive, single award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price contract for SPARC processor capacity services with a total lifecycle contract amount of $329,586,627. The minimum guarantee for this effort, which is being met by the first delivery order under HC1084-19-D-0001, is $630,000, funded by fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds. Performance will be at current Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) data centers or future DISA centers in the continental U.S. (CONUS); DISA outside CONUS data centers; and other DISA or DISA-approved locations worldwide in which DISA may acquire an operational responsibility. Proposals were solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website (FEDBIZOPPS), and two proposals were received. The period of performance is for a base period of five years beginning Oct. 17, 2018, and five one-year option periods through Oct. 16, 2028. The Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization, Scott AFB, Illinois, is the contracting activity (HC1084-19-D-0001). NAVY The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, is awarded $136,999,356 for modification P00002 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, time and material, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-18-D-0113). This modification provides CFM56-7B27A/3 and CFM56-7B27AE engine depot maintenance and repair, field assessment, maintenance repair and overhaul engine repair, and technical assistance for removal and replacement of engines for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft in support of the Navy and the government of Australia. Work will be performed in Atlanta, Georgia (94 percent); and Seattle, Washington (6 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2019. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., San Diego, California, is awarded a $136,753,425 undefinitized contract action on a not-to-exceed basis for the procurement of long lead time material, pre-production and engineering support for the Expeditionary Sea Base 6. This action allows the procurement of ship sets of the purchase specifications supporting integrated propulsion, main diesel generator engines, propeller and shafting, integrated bridge electronics, centrifugal pumps, fuel and lube oil purifiers and steering gear components. Work will be performed in San Diego, California (21 percent); Beloit, Wisconsin (19 percent); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (17 percent); various cities in Alabama and Iowa (9 percent); Chula Vista, California (5 percent); Chesapeake, Virginia (5 percent); Iron Mountain, Michigan (4 percent); Busan, Korea (3 percent); and various other locations totaling 17 percent, and is expected to be completed by May 2019. Fiscal 2018 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $65,876,713 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with U.S. Code 2304(c) (1) – only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. StandardAero Inc., San Antonio, Texas, is being awarded $121,890,824 for modification P00002 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, time and material, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-18-D-0110). This modification provides CFM56-7B27A/3 and CFM56-7B27AE engine depot maintenance and repair, field assessment, maintenance repair and overhaul engine repair, and technical assistance for removal and replacement of engines for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft in support of the Navy and the government of Australia. Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (93 percent); and San Antonia, Texas (7 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2019. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, is awarded $33,025,575 for modification P00003 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, time and material, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contract (N00019-18-D-0112). This modification provides P-8A Poseidon aircraft depot scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, depot in-service repair planner and estimator requirements, technical directive incorporation, airframe modifications, ground support and removal and replacement of engines in support of the Navy and the government of Australia. Work will be performed in Atlanta, Georgia (94 percent); and Seattle, Washington (6 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2019. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. AAR Aircraft Services Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, is awarded $32,784,405 for modification P00003 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, time and material, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contract (N00019-18-D-0111). This modification provides P-8A Poseidon aircraft depot scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, depot in-service repair planner and estimator requirements, technical directive incorporation, airframe modifications, ground support and removal and replacement of engines in support of the Navy and the government of Australia. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, Indiana, and is expected to be completed in October 2019. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Vectrus Systems Corp., Colorado Springs, Colorado, is awarded $28,694,621 for firm-fixed-price task order N6945019F0500 under a previously awarded global contingency service multiple award contract (N62742-16-D-3552) for base operations support services at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay. The work to be performed provides for base operations support services to include family housing, facility management, facility investment, custodial, pest control, integrated solid waste management, other (swimming pools), grounds maintenance and landscaping, utilities management, electrical, wastewater, water, and base support vehicles and equipment. The task order also contains two unexercised six-month option periods, which if exercised would increase the cumulative task order value to $59,727,709. Work will be performed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and is expected to be completed by November 2019. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy, Army and Defense Agencies); fiscal 2019 Navy working capital funds; and fiscal 2019 Defense Health Program contract funds in the amount of $21,483,790 for recurring work will be obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Three proposals were received for this task order. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Florida, is the contracting activity. EDO LLC, Amityville, New York, is awarded $7,751,952 for modification P00009 to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price, cost reimbursable contract (N00019-17-C-0029). This modification provides for the procurement of four carriage system simulators, nine BRU-55B/A engineering change proposal kits, 30 joint miniature munition interface / universal armament interface capable umbilical cables, and non-recurring engineering for the universal armament interface to include parts, testing, labor and travel in support of the Precision Strike Weapons program office. Work will be performed in Amityville, New York, and is expected to be completed in June 2021. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,751,952 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Aseptico Inc.,* Woodinville, Washington, has been awarded a maximum $28,500,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for hospital equipment and accessories for the Defense Logistics Agency electronic catalog. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. This was a competitive acquisition with 53 responses received; 16 contracts have been awarded to date. Using customers are Department of Defense and other federal organizations. Location of performance is Washington, with an Oct. 15, 2023, performance completion date. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2018 through 2023 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2DH-19-D-0004). *Small Business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1663723/source/GovDelivery/

All news