News

Andrew Chuter LONDON – Britain is poised to cut an order for Boeing E-7 Wedgetails, with the airborne early warning and control aircraft possibly becoming the first confirmed victim of the government's upcoming integrated defense review. Negotiations between Boeing and the Ministry of Defence have been underway since mid-summer over a possible reduction in Wedgetail numbers from five to three, or possibly four, aircraft as part of a wider cost-cutting exercise. Newspapers here have recently been full of leaks about possible capability cuts and delays to equipment like armored vehicles, artillery, surface warships and support ships and fighter aircraft. All of the leaks have been brushed off by the MoD as speculation, even though some of the leaks were likely inspired by the MoD itself to test the waters of political and public acceptability. This time, though, the response from the MoD was different. Replying to a tweet in The Times Sept. 22 an MoD spokesperson pretty much confirmed the cuts were under consideration. “We regularly discuss equipment programs with our partners, particularly when it comes to making savings and cutting costs, where appropriate,” they said. A Boeing spokesperson in London said the company “doesn't comment on commercial matters.” Defense consultant Howard Wheeldon of Wheeldon Strategic Advisory said leaving the RAF with just three Wedgetails would leave the UK seriously short of aerial command-and-control and situational awareness capability. “Personally, I regard this as little short of insanity. ... To guarantee 27/7 capability requires that the UK has a minimum of five airframes. Potentially reducing the number to three would have very serious consequences and if this really has already been decided it needs to be reconsidered very quickly. Assured 24/7 AWACS capability is not just an option – it is an absolute necessity,” said Wheeldon. A potential reduction in Wedgetail numbers is not the only ISTAR capability cut in the cards. The RAF remains on track to take out of service next year its Raytheon-supplied Sentinel battlefield surveillance aircraft. In early 2019 the MoD controversially signed a deal worth £1.5 billion – without a competition – to supply five of the Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft to the RAF with deliveries starting in 2023 and the final platform being handed over in 2025. The aircraft will replace the RAFs increasingly ancient Sentry E-3D's, whose capability has been limited by under-investment going back years. The deal with Boeing was meant to restore high-quality airborne early warning to the RAF by the mid 2020s. Last year the company signed a deal with STS Aviation to modify the 737NG commercial aircraft used for Wedgetail to an AEW configuration at a hangar on Birmingham airport in England. Early work on stripping out two second-hand airliners has already got underway in the US ahead of the aircraft being transferred to the UK where the modification effort will create jobs. Wedgetail is not operated by the US military but has secured Australia, Turkey and South Korea as export customers. Much of the equipment for the RAF aircraft are due to be supplied by Australian industry. The move to reduce Wedgetail numbers comes as the government moves closer to taking the wraps off what it has promised to be a “fundamental” review of British defense, security, foreign policy and overseas development. Led by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his chief advisor Dominic Cummings, the review is looking at pivoting defense away from conventional sunset capabilities to more sunrise technologies in areas like space, artificial intelligence, cyber and undersea warfare. The trouble is Britain's Brexit- and Covid-19-battered economy is unlikely to find much, if anything, in the way of additional resources for an MoD which already has significant funding issues. To make room for costly future technology programs the armed services are going to have to make sacrifices elsewhere. The procurement process is likely to be in Cummings cross hairs along with conventional capabilities like main battle tanks and army personnel numbers. When the review is published, possibly around mid-November, it's likely to be a bloody affair. One industry executive here, who asked not to be named, said he thought the outcome was likely to be worse than the 2010 strategic defense and security review, which stripped out capabilities like aircraft carriers, fast jets, maritime patrol aircraft and personnel. Wheeldon said by now nobody should imagine the integrated defense review is about building Britain's defense capabilities, but quite the reverse. “If anyone really is still under the illusion that the underlying intention behind the 2020 ‘Integrated Review' process – that of forming a soundly based long-term strategic decision making process of where the UK wants to be in the future, why and what defense and security capability will be required to meet those ambitions – let them now understand that the reality is that what eventually emerges will primarily have been about further cutting of UK defense capability at a time when others, including our adversaries and would-be enemies, are increasing their expenditure in the sector.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/09/22/cash-strapped-britain-eyes-shrinking-its-order-of-new-early-warning-planes/

Seapower Staff WASHINGTON, D.C. – Lockheed Martin, tapped as one of six companies to provide a study for a proven, integrated and capable payload ship, able to patrol for extended durations, as part of the U.S. Navy's Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV) competition, is partnering with Portland, Oregon-based Vigor Works LLC as the team's shipbuilder. As prime contractor, Lockheed Martin will manage the program, deliver platform integration, systems engineering, combat management, automation and cyber solutions, Lockheed Martin said in a Sept. 17 release. “The Lockheed Martin team brings together nearly 200 years of combined experience in shipbuilding, integration, automation and autonomy,” said Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin vice president and general manager of Small Combatants and Ship Systems. “Our team is energized by and focused on delivering the Navy what they've asked for – a design for an affordable, low-risk ship capable of bringing the Navy's Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) vision to life.” The Lockheed Martin team's design uses a proven commercial ship that will be augmented with automation, autonomy and cybersecurity elements to house a payload. The design leverages Lockheed Martin's autonomy and automation experience, including its platform-agnostic Sikorsky MATRIX technology that's been used to fly a helicopter from a wireless tablet, and its AXIS control technology, used on more than half of U.S. Navy surface ships to manage engineering and machinery controls. Under the $7 million contract, Lockheed Martin will deliver the study within 12 months in advance of the next phase of the competition – the Navy's LUSV Detailed Design & Construction competition. “We are honored to be part of the Lockheed Martin team and to leverage our extensive fabrication expertise, including previously building 16 USVs of various designs and sizes,” said Richard McCreary, Vigor vice president, business development. “We are ready to deliver a concept design that will help the Navy deploy a safe, efficient and affordable LUSV fleet for the future.” The Navy's vision for USVs will enable the fleet to fight as a distributed, networked and more lethal force. USVs will provide extended presence across the globe with reduced risk to sailors and increased obstacles and complications for adversaries. https://seapowermagazine.org/lockheed-martin-teams-with-vigor-for-navys-lusv-study/

DAVE RESS BAE Systems' Norfolk shipyard is suing the Navy's Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center, claiming the yard is owed nearly $1.1 million for work it did on USS Bataan. The lawsuit contends that the Navy is refusing to pay for extra work that BAE and its subcontractors had to perform because the Navy didn't provide necessary supplies or complete needed work while Bataan was in the BAE shipyard. BAE won a $51.6 million, fixed-price contract to repair and modernize Bataan in September 2017. It was originally supposed to complete the work in July 2018, but that was extended to November 2018. When the ship was not delivered by then, the Navy declared BAE in default of the contract. BAE continued to work on the ship until March 2019. The lawsuit alleges that the Navy's challenges securing funds for additional work delayed completion. In addition, the lawsuit says the Navy's continued dumping of liquids into the bilge spaces prevented BAE from completing cleaning and pumping work. It also alleges that the Navy also expanded the work required, as when it directed the yard to add multiple pendant and wire installations on the Flight Deck Safety Nets. BAE said most of its claims for payment for the additional work were denied by the Navy's Contracting Officer in a formal final decision, prompting the shipyard to sue for the funds it claims it is owed. The Navy maintenance center has not yet filed a formal response to the BAE complaint. A spokesman was not immediately available for comment. https://www.pilotonline.com/business/shipyards/dp-nw-bae-bataan-20200922-3gangsit5zgtljyo2mgdvorcx4-story.html

David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps both say they need expanded surveillance capabilities for a potential fight with China, but the Marines have cut bait on a big, ship-based system that some analysts say would make a big difference for both services. The Chief of Naval Operations' air warfare lead said earlier this month that every carrier strike group commander needs more surveillance, and he wants to find a way to get more pure intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drones flying off the flight decks of Navy ships as soon as possible. That aligns with the Marine Corps' goals of having more ISR and network connectivity resident in the amphibious ready group/Marine expeditionary unit construct, as it is in the carrier strike group with the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. But with the Marine Corps moving away from a large unmanned platform known as the “Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Expeditionary,” it's unclear if the Navy and Marine Corps will be able to find common ground on the way forward. When asked if the Navy was moving toward more organic ISR on Navy flight decks, Air Warfare Director Rear Adm. Gregory Harris told the virtual audience at the annual Tailhook symposium that he was trying to find alignment with the Marine Corps' need for a medium-altitude, long endurance drone system. “Every strike group wants to know more and more and more about his battlespace,” Harris said. "As we look at future vertical lift and the Marine Corps looks at their MUX or Medium Altitude Long Endurance system, [we're talking] about how we can find synergy between the Marine Corps and the Navy's pieces of the MUX/MALE program and our future vertical life (unmanned portion) — we want to bring that as far left as we possibly can in terms of synergy between the Navy and Marine Corps. “But I promise you there is not a strike group commander or fleet commander that can get enough ISR out there. And that aspect, from a distributed maritime operations standpoint, what we can bring from the strike group whether it comes off a carrier, a DDG or the future frigate or comes off Triton, that is fantastic.” The Marines were examining a tilt-rotor drone that could take off from from a DDG or a big-deck amphibious ship, but Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder told USNI News in March that the Marines couldn't get the kind of range and endurance they wanted from a tilt-rotor done while packing all the power and cooling it needed for high-end communications and early warning systems. “What we discovered with the MUX program is that it's going to require a family of systems. The initial requirement had a long list of very critical requirements, but when we did the analysis and tried to fit it inside one air vehicle,” they realized they had competing needs, Rudder told USNI. Analysts are divided on whether that's the right idea. Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant with The FerryBridge Group, said the Marines gave up too early on the concept, and that it works against the Marine's stated goal of becoming an arm of naval power. “The Marine Corps wishes to go forward fast, and that is a land-based, medium-altitude, long-endurance UAV solution,” McGrath said. “I think it's suboptimal. I think it is a blow to this whole concept of integrated American naval power.” Packing all that capability into a land-based system tethers the capability to basing rights agreements. But another consideration is that capability will be at the mercy of the theater commander, which means the Marines may get less use out of them than they anticipate. “I believe the Marines will find that those assets will be a lot more difficult to keep control of than they think they will be with respect to tasking once they are in theater.” McGrath said. "There will be customers for those ISR assets that will greatly exceed the tactical level of the requirement. “I think the Marines are making a mistake not working closely with the Navy to come up with an organic, ship-based MALE solution. All this does is push the horizon for such a necessary component of the ISR-T grid for the Western Pacific even further into the future. And all for a suboptimal, short-term approach to trying to solve its problems, and I think they are going to find that it will not solve their problems.” But the Marines are nothing if not aggressive, and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger has clearly prioritized speed in his quest to reshape the service. Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and analyst with The Heritage Foundation thinks that's the right approach. “I think they have to go separate paths,” Wood said when asked about the Marines' embrace of land-based air. "I think the more you combine multi-service efforts into a single program, it gets bogged down by all the competing requirements. “The expense goes up, the ability to deliver capability ends up being less than was originally hoped for. And then these competing, or even conflicting requirements clash and it mucks up the whole thing.” Breaking the MUX program into multiple systems has the advantage of spreading out capabilities, and relying on platforms already in production will speed everything along, Wood said. “I'm a huge advocate of prototyping and trying multiple paths, and that costs a bit of money to do that, but you end up with a variety of platforms, all with unique contributions to the overall capability set,” he said. “The Navy has a habit of loading on additional requirements. They look for very robust, long-lifespan capabilities. And of course, the expense and complexity go up. Manufacturing time goes up. There is a delay in getting a capability in the fleet. I like the Marine Corps' aggressive posture: There is a sense of urgency.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/21/did-the-us-marine-corps-give-up-on-a-big-ship-based-surveillance-drone-too-so

Steve Trimble Northrop Grumman has revealed the first photograph of a pod for the Next Generation Jammer-Low Band (NGJ-LB) system possibly weeks ahead of a competitive contract award. The U.S. Navy image released by Northrop shows the full-scale candidate for the NGJ-LB contract during testing inside the Air Combat Environment Test and Evaluation Facility's anechoic chamber. The image reveals a pod with a dimpled outer mold line similar to the ALQ-99 low-band pods, which the winning NGJ-LB design is expected to augment and then replace. Northrop and rival L3Harris recently completed anechoic chamber testing of both competing NGJ-LB pods while wrapping up the 20-month Demonstration of Existing Technologies phase, which precedes a contract award for the engineering and manufacturing development phase scheduled in November. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has budgeted $3 billion to develop and build the NGJ-LB pods over the life of the program. Each pod will be integrated on the Boeing EA-18G aircraft. The low-band pods will complement the Raytheon NGJ-Mid-band pods now in early production. NAVAIR also has expressed long-term interest in a new high-band pod. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/sensors-electronic-warfare/northrop-grumman-reveals-low-band-jammer-candidate

Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― U.S. Army officials told lawmakers Tuesday they are seeking a new 15-year, $16 billion strategy to modernize and automate the military's aging munitions plants following nearly a dozen worker deaths and injuries over recent years. In Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee testimony, Army officials suggested workers who handle dangerous materials could be replaced by robotics and computers as part of their ambitious plan. The testimony came as lawmakers are deliberating over a proposed reshaping of the Pentagon's explosives oversight body, as part of the 2021 defense policy bill. “We're essentially making the explosives in a manner very much like we did in World War I in some cases, World War II in others,” Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Bruce Jette told lawmakers. “We literally have people standing under machines that are full of 1,500 pounds of molten explosives, drooling it into artillery shells to fill them up, and then they push the carts away. We don't have automation, we don't have robotics.” Lawmakers described the ammunition industrial base as fragile because of its dependence on foreign sources of materials and because its aging facilities need of safety upgrades. (Munitions production facilities are contractor operated, with some owned by the government.) Army officials largely agreed, saying they rely on 55 foreign suppliers for certain equipment and materials ― such as a TNT-replacement 2,4-Dinitroanisole, which comes from India ― because costs, environmental regulations and legal liabilities make many of them harder to develop in the United States. The Army even relies on a small volume of detonators and pyrotechnics from China, Jette said. The Army is studying how to wean itself from foreign suppliers. At the same time, Jette has not ruled out supplies from Canada, Mexico and elsewhere, if a surge is needed, adding that he personally visited a South Korean factory that once supplied the U.S. with bullets at .50 caliber and below. Calling safety a top priority, Army officials said human handling of the energetics, explosives and acids associated with munitions can be replaced with “process automation or other technology solutions, freeing the workforce to focus on technical oversight.” More than 80 percent of major mishaps at munitions facilities were caused by human error, they said. “Three deaths in the last ten years on our facilities, two of them were related to the manufacturing process: We don't need to have that happen anymore,” Jette said. “I do not want to be the ASAALT and get another phone call that there's another death on something I could have provided the improvement to.” Jette said the 2017 death of Lake City Army Ammunition Plant worker Lawrence Bass, 55, “should not have occurred,” and that Bass ― killed while handling an explosive component called tetrazine ― was performing his duties in accordance with procedures. “His death is in fact a catalyst in transforming our approach, as opposed to modernizing under current circumstances. He should never have been in that close proximity where that event could have happened,” Jette said. “Should it happen with a machine, I can buy another machine.” Still, modernizing in the way Army officials seek would require Congress appropriate roughly $1 billion per year for 15 years, which is more than twice what the Army has asked over the last three years. It's an open question whether Congress would be as inclined to support the munitions productions facilities, if they support fewer jobs. “The idea of making it safer for workers, there's no doubt about that, but because these plants have grown up since the '40′s," said Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Chairman Donald Norcross, D-N.J. "You eliminate many of those jobs, there's potential of that support also going.” Asked what more industry could do to shoulder the cost of modernizing facilities, Jette suggested it would be better if the government made the investments upfront as industry would only pass the costs on later. “This is the United States military's industrial base for munitions. We need to own that, not have anything beholden IP-wise or any other way to the defense industry or any other supplier," Jette said. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/09/22/after-munition-worker-deaths-army-floats-16-billion-plan-to-modernize-production/

Mark Gunzinger Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new U.S. Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict U.S. operations in the past. Hyten also noted the concept will seamlessly integrate “fires from all domains, including space and cyber,” to overwhelm an enemy. While these aspirations are laudable, there are indications the concept could fall short of what is needed to inform cross-service trade-offs that must be made in an era of flat or declining defense budgets. The DoD creates operating concepts to define preferred approaches to perform specific missions or execute a campaign to defeat an enemy. They also provide a foundation for the services to assess new technologies, force alternatives and resource priorities. Said another way, they are the tissue that connects top-level National Defense Strategy guidance to actual plans and programs. While a joint all-domain war-fighting concept is urgently needed, Hyten has not made it clear the one in development will lead to trade-offs that maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. For instance, Hyten has said it will call for every service to conduct long-range strikes: “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep. ... Everybody.” This could mean the concept will support a degree of redundancy across the services that has never existed. Setting aside tough trade-offs that eliminate excessively redundant programs will waste defense dollars and reduce capabilities available to U.S. commanders. More specifically, the concept might endorse the Army's plan to buy 1,000-mile-plus, surface-to-surface missiles that cost millions of dollars each. Doing so would ignore analyses that have determined using large numbers of these weapons would be far more expensive than employing bombers that can strike any target on the planet for a fraction of the cost, then regenerate and fly more sorties. Furthermore, the Army's long-range missile investments could be at the expense of its ability to defend U.S. theater air bases against missile attacks. Not only has air base missile defense long been an Army mission — it has long neglected and underfunded the mission. Chinese or Russian strikes against under-defended air bases could cripple the United States' primary combat sortie-generation operations. If the concept does not consider these kinds of trade-offs, it could be due to the approach used to create it. The Joint Staff's doctrine development process is notorious for seeking consensus instead of making cross-service trade-offs necessary to maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. Assuring bureaucratic service equities versus optimizing combat lethality can lead to operating concepts that fail to create clear priorities or — worse yet — declare everything a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. Moreover, each service was asked to develop a subordinate concept that will be integrated into the whole. This piece-part approach could result in the services ladening their subordinate concepts with their own equities instead of working together to develop the most effective, decisive options. In short, a bottom-up, consensus-driven concept for all-domain warfare would not be an effective baseline to compare the DoD's force structure and capability alternatives. Three things could help to avoid this mistake. First, the secretary of defense should approve a new all-domain war-fighting concept, and the secretary's staff should be deeply involved in its development. Some say the latter is inappropriate, believing the military, not DoD civilians, should create war-fighting concepts. However, it is entirely appropriate for the secretary's staff to be part of the concept's creation if its purpose is to shape the DoD's plans and programs. Second, DoD leaders should rigorously examine the services' existing roles and missions during the concept's development, and make changes to reduce excessively redundant responsibilities, forces and capabilities. This may need to be driven by congressional language. Finally, the DoD should jettison the word “joint” as part of the concept's title. This would stress the concept is focused on integrating operations across all domains, not on the services that provide forces to combatant commanders. The point is not for all to participate, but instead for all options to be considered, and those that provide best combat value be prioritized. Otherwise, it becomes a case analogous to all the kids chasing a soccer ball. The 2018 National Defense Strategy was the beginning of the effort to shift the DoD toward preparing for peer conflict. Given that dollars and time are short, the DoD must now get a concept for all-domain warfare right. Like the National Defense Strategy, the concept must be top-down driven, not a bottom-up, consensus-driven product that fails to make trade-offs across the services and provides a rationale that supports what each service desires to buy. Rather, its ultimate objective should be to seek best-value capabilities and expand theater commander options to defeat peer adversaries. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/22/a-consensus-driven-joint-concept-for-all-domain-warfare-will-fall-short/

Ed Adamczyk Sept. 21 (UPI) -- BAE Systems announced a contract Monday worth up to $111 million to supply the U.S. Navy with Archerfish mine neutralizers. Archerfish is used by the US Navy's MH-60S Helicopter squadrons as part of their Airborne Mine Neutralization System capability, and reduces the need to put diving personnel in the water for clearance missions, according to the company. The system is a remote-controlled, torpedo-like device that can be launched and operated from a surface ship, helicopter or an unmanned underwater vehicle. Using fiber optic data link relays, Archerfish can provide real-time sonar pictures of potential targets through on-board sensors, a BAE statement on Monday said. "Archerfish not only keeps sailors safer, it also reduces the number and cost of mine clearance missions," said Brooke Hoskins, director of products and training for BAE's maritime services business. Each AMNS device consists of a Launch and Handling System for all data processing during a mission, and up to four elements called destructors, which handle target acquisition and demolition. The Navy established a requirement for rapid neutralization of bottom and moored sea mines to support operations in littoral zones, confined straits, choke points and the amphibious objective area. This is the fourth Navy contract awarded to BAE since 2003 to build AMNS devices, which will be manufactured at the company's facilities in Britain. The number of devices ordered by the Navy was not reported. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2020/09/21/BAE-awarded-111M-contract-for-Navys-Archerfish-mine-neutralizers/3721600703371/

Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Army Futures Command has given the green light to the Maneuver Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate to move forward on developing a plan to equip tactical and combat vehicles with electric power, according to a Sept. 21 statement. The directorate will begin drafting a requirements document for Tactical and Combat Vehicle Electrification (TaCVE) and will host an industry day Oct. 20 to share its electrification initiatives with industry. CALSTART, an organization that focuses on clean technology transportation, and the Ground Vehicles Systems Center will cohost the event. The electrification effort aims to decrease the Army's reliance on fossil fuels. “The requirement also aims to increase operational reach across all maneuver formations through electric propulsion, which offers a variety of operational and tactical benefits,” a statement from the directorate read. “These include the potential to double operational duration, implement silent mobility, increase silent watch, and potentially reduce the Army's logistical burden by nearly half when fully implemented,” it stated. The Army launched an earnest effort into electrifying the brigade earlier this spring. Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley, then-director of the Futures and Concepts Center within AFC, told Defense News at the time that the effort is easier said than done and doesn't just just focus on simply powering a vehicle electrically. Instead, it would attempt to work out how an entire enterprise that would support those electric vehicle fleets and other capabilities could work. “Let's be clear. We're behind. We're late to meet on this thing,” Wesley said. “If you look at all of the analysis, all of the various nations that we work with, they're all going to electric power with their automotive fleet, and right now, although we do [science and technology] and we've got some research and development going on and we can build prototypes, in terms of a transition plan, we are not there.” Army officials know there will likely be a time where vehicles that use fossil fuel and ones that are all-electric share the battlefield. “What is the distribution plan that enables that?” Wesley wondered. “That is much more complex when you look at the implications for an entire enterprise.” Wesley was preparing a proposal for the head of Futures Command on how the service might accomplish such an endeavor that could change the paradigm of the logistics and sustainment tails as well as enhance force mobility. The proposal was intended to make a business case for the Army electrifying the formation, discuss the technical feasibility and describe a transition process. The MCDID requirements development process gives the overall effort traction to move out quickly. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/09/21/army-gives-green-light-to-shape-vehicle-electrification-requirements/