July 27, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
Contracts for July 26, 2021
Today
July 21, 2020 | International, Land
US Army seeks to compete as OMFV prime, industry unnerved
by Ashley Roque
Industry is concerned about a potential US Army plan to bid on, judge, and select its own M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle replacement, and is likening such a measure to a metaphorical self-licking ice cream cone.
During the past few weeks, defence companies have been eagerly awaiting the release of a draft request for proposal (RFP) for the army's latest attempt to design and field an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). Although they were interested in learning more about what the army is seeking this time around, they were also keen to see if a provision was included that enabled the service's Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC) to also compete as a prime contractor. As several sources suspected, the draft RFP publicly released on 17 July included such provision.
“Potential offerors are notified that a US government entity may submit a proposal as a prime offeror,” the army wrote.
Ashley John, the public affairs director for the army's Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, confirmed to Janes on 19 July that the service is exploring options to “leverage its core competencies and compete with industry in the design of a future combat vehicle”. More specifically, she said that the service wanted to use its science and technology community and engineers to “potentially develop” a Bradley replacement vehicle.
As a result, interested vendors now have a flurry of questions over the ethics and legality of such a measure. One industry source that closely collaborates with the service and GVSC told Janes
On the same subject
-
-
July 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Rolls-Royce Formally Enters B-52 Re-Engining Competition
July 22, 2020 | By Brian W. Everstine Rolls-Royce formally entered the competition to re-engine the B-52 as expected, offering its F130 engine already in use in some USAF aircraft to power the bomber. The Air Force on May 19 issued its request for proposals for the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program, with responses due on July 22 and a contract award expected in June 2021. In addition to Rolls-Royce, GE Aviation and Raytheon Technologies' Pratt & Whitney will compete for the award. The service wants to buy 608 engines for 76 B-52s to keep the bomber flying through 2050. The bomber currently uses Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines, and the service is calling for fuel efficiency savings of about 30 percent and an increase in range of up to 40 percent. Rolls-Royce, in a July 22 statement, said the F130 engine has “the perfect size and thrust, and features a modern, efficient, and proven design.” The engine, a variant of the BR725 commercial engine, is in use in E-11s and C-37s. GE Aviation is offering the CF34-10 and Passport engines, touting that the company has already done re-engining for the KC-135, C-5, and U-2 programs along with providing engines for the B-1 and B-2 fleets. Pratt & Whitney is offering the PW800 engine, and the company has said it has expertise on the B-52, having provided the legacy powerplant. https://www.airforcemag.com/rolls-royce-formally-enters-b-52-re-engining-competition/
-
July 10, 2018 | International, Naval
Has the US Navy thought this new frigate through? New report raises questions.
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is rapidly moving toward procuring the first hull in its new class of frigate in 2020, but a new report is raising questions about whether the Navy has done detailed analysis about what it needs out of the ship before barging ahead. The Navy may not have done an adequate job of analyzing gaps and capabilities shortfalls before it set itself on a fast-track to buying the so-called FFG(X) as an adaptation from a parent design, said influential Navy analyst Ron O'Rourke in a new Congressional Research Service report. In essence, the CRS report questions whether the Navy looked at what capabilities the service already has in the fleet, what capabilities it's missing and whether the FFG(X) is the optimal solution to address any identified shortfalls. O'Rourke suggests Congress push the Navy on “whether procuring a new class of FFGs is the best or most promising general approach for addressing the identified capability gaps and mission needs, and whether the Navy has performed a formal, rigorous analysis of this issue, as opposed to relying solely on subjective judgments of Navy or [Defense Department] leaders.” ““Subjective judgments, though helpful, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding the best or most promising general approach,” the report reads. “Potential alternative general approaches for addressing identified capability gaps and mission needs in this instance include (to cite a few possibilities) modified LCSs, FFs, destroyers, aircraft, unmanned vehicles, or some combination of these platforms.” The Navy is looking to adapt its FFG(X) from an existing design such as Fincantieri's FREMM, one of the two existing littoral combat ships or the Coast Guard's national security cutter as a means of getting updated capabilities into a small surface combatant and into the fleet quickly. A better approach, O'Rourke suggests, would be to make a formal, rigorous analysis of alternatives to its current course. Failure to do so has led to a series of setbacks with the Navy's current small surface combatant program, the LCS. “The Navy did not perform a formal, rigorous analysis of this kind prior to announcing the start of the LCS program in November 2001, and this can be viewed as a root cause of much of the debate and controversy that attended the LCS program, and of the program's ultimate restructurings in February 2014 and December 2015,” O'Rourke writes. O'Rourke further suggests the Navy is relying too much on subjective opinions of Navy and Defense Department leaders, instead of a legitimate analysis. And indeed, the Navy has made rapid acquisition of the new ship the hallmark of the program. “Subjective judgments can be helpful, particularly in terms of capturing knowledge and experience that is not easily reduced to numbers, in taking advantage of the ‘wisdom of the crowd,‘ and in coming to conclusions and making decisions quickly,” O'Rourke argues. “On the other hand, a process that relies heavily on subjective judgments can be vulnerable to group-think, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding capability gaps and mission needs, and, depending on the leaders involved, can emphasize those leaders' understanding of the Navy's needs.” Read the full report here. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/09/has-the-us-navy-thought-this-new-frigate-through-new-report-raises-questions/