News

Valerie Insinna and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to sign an executive order directing the Pentagon to create a new ”Space Force,” a move that could radically transform the U.S. military by pulling space functions variously owned by the Air Force, Navy and other military branches into a single independent service. But while the president's support for a new military branch is notable, experts -- and a powerful member of Congress -- believe Trump still needs the support of Congress to make a space force happen. “I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council. “That's a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important,” Trump added. “General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored.” Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, “We got you.” According to a White House pool report, the president signed the executive order establishing the Space Force at about 12:36 p.m. EST. However, a readout issued from the White House later that day of the executive order contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military. The Air Force referred all questions to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which did not respond immediately to requests for comment. However, a defense official, speaking on background, said “The Joint Staff will work closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, other DoD stakeholders and the Congress to implement the President's guidance." Trump's support for creating a separate branch for space is a break from his own adminsitration's stance last year, as well as that of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. “At a time when we are trying to integrate the Department's joint warfighting functions, I do not wish to add a separate service that would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations vice an integrated one we're constructing under our current approach,” Mattis wrote in a 2017 letter to members of Congress. But in recent months, Trump has signaled he was intrigued by the idea of a stand alone space force, saying in a May 1 speech that “We're actually thinking of a sixth” military branch for space. At the time, that statement confounded Air Force leaders who had publicly opposed the creation of a separate space service, leading them to adopt a softer tone when talking about the potential for Space Force to avoid being seen as out of step with Trump. This time, however, Trump's announcement tracks with the Pentagon's schedule for an interim report on whether to establish an independent space corps. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said in April that it was on track to be wrapped up on June 1. The final report, which would be sent to Congress, is due in August. Trump's announcement was characteristically vague, but experts say that any new branch would have to come through an act of Congress. “The Congress alone has the power to establish a new branch of the military and to establish the positions of senior executive officials to lead such a department,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown University's law school who has studied constitutional issues relating to the military. “While the Pentagon can informally create study or working groups, it has no such authority.” The president can have the military lay the groundwork for a future new branch, Turley said, which is close to what Trump seemed to be getting at. By: Kelsey Atherton “What the President can do is to order the study and proposal for a new branch, which would ultimately go to Congress of any authorization and appropriations,” he said. Todd Harrison, an expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed, tweeting Monday that “The president can't just create a new military service on his own. It requires congressional authorization..” “So the near-term practical effect of all this is that the president can direct DoD to come up with a plan and start preparing to create a Space Force, but he still needs congress to authorize it,” Harrison continued. And while sources on Capitol Hill said they believe Trump does have the authority to establish the new military branch, and that their attention will now turn to funding and missions for the new Space Force, at least one Republican member of Congress made his stance clear. “Establishing a service branch requires congressional action,” House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee chair Mike Turner, R-Ohio. “We still don't know what a Space Force would do, who is going to be in it, or how much is it going to cost. “The congressionally mandated report evaluating a Space Force to answer those questions is due in August,” Turner added. “After we get the report that we required as a legislative body and the President signed off on, then this issue can be appropriately evaluated for what's best for national security.” Congress reacts Trump's announcement also left it unclear whether this new space force will rest under the Department of the Air Force — much like the Marine Corps is a component of the Department of the Navy — or whether a new “Department of the Space Force” will also be created. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., the head of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, tweeted out his support for Trump's order. Rogers had previously proposed a separate space service as part of Congress' annual defense policy bill. However, lawmakers and experts also immediately registered their opposition to the announcement. Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-Fla.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees nonmilitary space programs, tweeted that now was not the right time to establish a separate space force. Harrison noted that the infrastructure may already exist to smooth the creation of a space force. “Creating a Space Force would not necessarily mean a huge increase in funding. We already have space forces within the military, this would just be reorganizing them under a single chain of command,” he tweeted. “Yes, there would be some extra overhead costs, but it doesn't have to be huge.” But David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and currently dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, questioned whether the administration had hammered down the details needed to successfully consolidate the military's space functions into a single service. “This is another case of ready, fire, aim,” he said. David Larter, Joe Gould, Tara Copp and Leo Shane III contributed to this report. This story is developing.

ANNE BAUER Fabriquer un char franco-allemand commun ? Par deux fois, à la fin des années cinquante et dans les années 1970, la France et l'Allemagne sont passées à côté de ce symbole de réconciliation. La troisième fois devrait être la bonne. Le conseil franco-allemand qui se tient mardi à Meseberg doit permettre de sceller une nouvelle avancée significative dans la coopération entre les deux pays en matière de défense. En misant sur deux programmes... https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0301839563239-defense-un-programme-franco-allemand-ambitieux-2185084.php

Pierre Tran PARIS — Naval Group has fielded top executives to Poland to pitch the Scorpene submarine in Warsaw's Orka naval program. The senior executives were in Poland June 14 and 15 presenting the Scorpene, which is a frontrunner in the Polish tender, said François Dupont, director of the international trade department. That French Scorpene is competing with the 212CD submarine from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and A26 boat from Saab in a closely watched competition reported to be worth 10 billion zloty (U.S. $2.71 billion). A creation of 2,000 local jobs and offer of the MBDA cruise missile are part of Naval Group's “highly significant offer,” he said. Naval Group has long played down the impact of political discord between France and Poland stemming from Warsaw's cancellation in 2016 of talks for an offset deal tied to 50 Caracal military helicopters. The previous Polish government had picked Airbus Helicopter as preferred bidder, but the present administration cancelled that when it took office. Meanwhile, chances of Naval Group of winning a sale of two Scorpene to Italy and displacing the incumbent supplier TKMS seem to be slim. “This is a complex campaign,” Dupont said. Italy is due to add a further two U212A boats to the present four-strong fleet built by Fincantieri under licence from TKMS. Political ties between France and Italy hit a low this week, calling into question whether Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte would go ahead with a June 15 visit to France. But Conte went ahead with the meeting with president Emmanuel Macron, despite the French head of state three days earlier decrying the “cynicism and irresponsibility” of Rome in turning away the Aquarius, a humanitarian rescue ship with 629 migrants aboard. In Canada, Naval Group has explained why concerns over handing over intellectual property rights led to a joint offer with Italian partner Fincantieri being submitted directly to the Canadian government rather than observing a procedure calling for filing a bid to Irving Shipbuilding. “We have explained, we have been heard,” he said. Naval Group hopes the Franco-Italian offer will win over rival bids which include the Type 26 frigate from BAE Systems, which Dupont points out has yet to be built. In India's plan to acquire six more submarines under the P-75I project, Naval Group hopes its supply of the first six Scorpene in the P-75 program with local partner Mazagon Dock Limited will lead to a follow-on deal. Exports are critical to Naval Group, which seeks to make half of annual sales from foreign deals by 2020, compared to around a third presently. Dupont, a graduate of Columbia University, took up his post as head of international trade on April 2. Dupont previously worked for Thales, specializing in export sales of sonar systems. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/06/15/naval-group-execs-head-to-poland-to-extoll-virtues-of-its-submarine/

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN The companies bidding on the Canadian Surface Combatant program will provide Irving Shipbuilding with their “cured” bids by July 21. Earlier this year, Postmedia reported that all three bidders in the competition failed to meet some of the federal government's requirements. The problems centre around technical issues. Some are minor but in other cases there is a view among defence industry officials that Canada is asking for too much in some areas such as radar, which may be causing problems with meeting requirements. Public Services and Procurement Canada spokeswoman Michèle LaRose earlier said the bids received for the Canadian Surface Combatant project have not been disqualified. Three bids have been received. The federal government and Irving Shipbuilding are still evaluating the proposals, she added. LaRose pointed out that the evaluation is at the second stage in the process. Government officials say that involves what is known as “the cure process” in which bidders will be given details of how their proposals have failed to meet the stated criteria. They will then be given only one opportunity to fix issues with their bids. So those fixes are to be submitted by July 21, according to industry representatives. If the bids are still considered “non-compliant” after the cure period they “will be eliminated from the competition,” according to the federal government. The budget for the Canadian Surface Combatant project is estimated by the federal government to be between $55 billion and $60 billion. That is a range but specific costs won't be known until contacts are signed and more details worked out. Fifteen warships will be built. Pat Finn, assistant deputy minister for materiel at the Department of National Defence, told Defence Watch he expects a winning bid to be selected by the end of this year. http://calgaryherald.com/news/national/defence-watch/it-is-make-or-break-time-for-canadian-surface-combatant-bidders/wcm/49777bbd-d1e9-44df-88f8-603850e12ae3

By: Jaroslaw Adamowski WARSAW, Poland — Estonia's Parliament has amended legislation to allow Estonian companies to make and handle military weapons and gear. The law paves the way for the development of the country's defense industry and the export of weapons and equipment by local players. Estonian Defence Minister Jüri Luik said in a statement that, to date, the Estonian military has acquired its gear almost exclusively abroad, but now the situation is expected to change, and export opportunities for the country's defense industry will also increase. “The absence of a right to handle weapons and ammunition has long been a serious concern for Estonia's defense industry, one that hinders the development of the defense sector,” Luik said. The legislation's summary states it “provides a legal framework for Estonian companies to begin to manufacture, maintain, import and export military weapons, ammunition, munitions and combat vehicles. The existing legislation does not allow this.” The ministry expects between five and six local companies to apply for the required licenses in the first year. The move comes as Estonia is planning a defense spending hike, with military expenditure to total €2.4 billion (U.S. $2.8 billion) in the next four years, according to Luik. Last April, the ministry unveiled the country's updated investment program for the years 2018-2022. Among others, Estonia aims to purchase munitions for about €100 million. Owing to the amended legislation, Estonian defense companies could also become suppliers to neighboring Lithuania and Latvia. Lithuania has allocated €873 million to its defense budget this year, up 20.6 percent compared with 2017. Latvia's military expenditure for 2018 is to reach €576.34 million, up €126.8 million compared with a year earlier. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/06/14/estonias-new-law-opens-door-for-weapons-export-defense-industry-growth/

U.S. President Donald Trump's tirade against Canada and threats to punish the country could undermine efforts by American firms trying to sell fighter jets and other military equipment to the Canadian Forces, warn defence and industry analysts. One European firm, Airbus, has already been talking with Canadian officials to pitch its plan to build fighter jets in Quebec as it positions itself to win the $16-billion deal to replace CF-18 aircraft. An Italian aerospace firm, Leonardo, is looking at building helicopters in Nova Scotia as it moves towards negotiations for a search-and-rescue aircraft modernization project the Department of National Defence says will be worth between $1 billion and $5 billion. Trump has hit Canadian aluminum and steel with tariffs, claiming their import is a threat to national security. After the weekend G7 meeting and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's reaffirming that Canada would reciprocate with tariffs on specific U.S. products, Trump vowed more economic grief that will “cost a lot of money for the people of Canada.” Trump's move comes at a time when European firms are courting the Canadian government, particularly on big-ticket defence items such as aircraft and warships. Billions of dollars in new purchases are potentially at stake and European firms had a strong presence at the recent CANSEC military equipment trade show in Ottawa. “Trump certainly isn't helping U.S. defence companies who want to sell to Canada,” said Martin Shadwick, a defence analyst in Toronto. “It would be very difficult at this point from a political optics point of view for the government to announce awarding contracts to any American firm.” Shadwick said whether that situation will continue for the next several years, when for instance the decision on new fighter jets is supposed to be made, would depend on any further actions by the president. Two U.S. aircraft, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35, are among the top contenders in that jet competition. The other three aircraft are from European companies. An earlier trade dispute with Canada has already backfired on Boeing and the Trump administration, costing the U.S. billions in fighter jet sales. Last year Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Canadian subsidies for Quebec-based Bombardier allowed it to sell its civilian passenger aircraft in the U.S. at cut-rate prices. As a result, the Trump administration brought in a tariff of almost 300 per cent against Bombardier aircraft sold in the U.S. In retaliation, Canada decided against buying 18 new Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That deal would have been worth more than US$5 billion. Christyn Cianfarani, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, said it is too early to determine the impact of the U.S. tariffs on the domestic defence industry. “Tariffs are never good for trade or business,” she added. “CADSI is monitoring the issue and consulting our members to better understand the potential impact to Canadian firms, both in terms of the direct impact of any tariffs and the more indirect, long term impact on supply chains and market access,” she said. There is growing concern that Canadian aviation firms could be hurt by Trump's aluminum tariffs. The Aerospace Industries Association of Canada did not respond to a request for comment. But its counterpart in the U.S. has voiced concern that American aerospace companies could feel pain. In March, the U.S. Aerospace Industries Association noted it was deeply concerned about Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum as it “will raise costs and disrupt the supply chain, putting U.S. global competitiveness at risk.” “There is also a significant threat for retaliation from other countries towards American made products,” the association noted in a statement. Canada is the largest exporter of aluminum and steel to the U.S. http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trade-dispute-could-leave-u-s-firms-out-of-the-running-to-sell-military-equipment-to-canada

By EMILY HAWS Department of National Defence deputy minister Jody Thomas says she'll work through the summer to review how the Canadian government buys defence equipment, with a view to paring down the procurement process to get projects out the door quicker. That could even mean more use of sole-source contracts, when it doesn't make sense to hold a competition. She says the department wants to ensure the money outlined in Strong, Secure, Engaged—the government's 20-year defence policy unveiled last year—is spent. The department took flak earlier earlier this year for not having the capacity to push procurement projects outlined in the plan through the system at the expected pace. Speaking at a June 7 conference organized by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute think-tank in Ottawa on the first anniversary of the defence policy, Ms. Thomas suggested switching up the rules around sole-source contracting. She discussed the idea on a panel with other top DND executives Gordon Venner and Bill Matthews, moderated by CGAI defence procurement expert David Perry. “I think what we want to do and what is expected of us is to have an honest conversation,” Ms. Thomas told the audience. “Where we know there's one supplier in the world that is compliant, Five Eyes-compliant, NORAD-compliant, whatever compliancy we need—to run a competition [in that case] where there is no hope of multiple bidders wastes [everyone's] time; it's kind of disingenuous and dishonest,” she said, referring to security alliances of which Canada is a member. “We have to talk to ministers about that, and ministers are open to that conversation.” Mr. Perry said in a separate interview that the change in process would be a big deal, but it would only happen if the government decides its priority is to spend money. The department is trying to determine a better balance between spending and oversight, he said, but it needs to keep in mind that the “objective is to spend money, not follow a thousand steps and do multiple dozens of reviews.” Sometimes government officials try overly hard to make the bid process competitive, said Mr. Perry, so they end up sending to Treasury Board for review some bids that clearly don't meet requirements. This leaves Treasury Board officials with only one compliant bidder, which in turn leads these keepers of the public purse to ask more questions and perhaps conduct reviews. For example, the government is looking at buying one or more tanker aircraft, and is narrowing down the list of eligible companies, said Mr. Perry. There are basically only two companies that sell tankers, Airbus and Boeing, he said. “You set it up so that everyone has a chance, but that doesn't actually mean that you can actually have a really competitive environment that have at least two bids that actually meet all of the mandatory things you need to meet to submit a bid,” he said. Depending on the extent the rules shift, they may require approval from not just Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan (Vancouver South, B.C.), but Treasury Board and the larger cabinet, he added. Conservative MP James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman, Man.) and NDP MP Randall Garrison (Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke, B.C.), defence critics for their respective parties, said they support streamlining the procurement process, but Mr. Bezan said the Liberals just need to be more decisive. Industry representatives are also supportive, with the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) calling the move “refreshing” in an emailed statement. DND is trying to increase its procurement workforce, said Ms. Thomas, adding that the procurement process is the same regardless of whether the contract is worth $1-million or $1-billion. Ms. Thomas, who has been in her role since October, said the rules were put in place after the department received criticism from the auditor general. “We've been risk-averse and we've been criticized, so a deputy's normal reaction to criticism or recommendations from the auditor general is to put process in place,” she said. “I absolutely understand that; we need to make sure it's appropriate to the complexity of the project.” She said she's going to work through the summer to analyze the number of steps in the procurement process to determine the value they serve and where they can be reduced. Ms. Thomas said she will create “sort of a lean methodology of the number of hands something has to touch, how long do we spend in project definition, [and] how long we spend in options analysis.” Byrne Furlong, a spokesperson for the defence minister, said in an emailed statement the review will accelerate approvals and delivery. “Ensuring our Canadian Armed Forces [are] well-equipped to deliver on what Canada requires of them is a significant undertaking,” she said, adding the government is committed to doing so. New defence policy ups procurement spending Earlier this year, Mr. Perry authored a report suggesting the procurement plans laid out in Strong, Secure, Engaged could be threatened by long-standing process problems. The new policy would see procurement ramp up from about $3.5-billion to $4-billion annually, in 2018-19 dollars, to $12-billion. Defence procurement budgets were cut from about 1990 until the mid-2000s, he said. Now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) is trying to play catch-up, but there's a bottlenecking of purchases. The government both doesn't have enough people to approve the projects, nor the quality of experience to work the larger, more technical jobs, Mr. Perry said in a previous interview. There are five critical steps to procuring defence equipment which spans from identification to close-out. Most work is done by DND to determine what it needs, said Mr. Perry, but the actual competition is run by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC). The change in rules Ms. Thomas is contemplating would only apply to DND, she said, as that's her jurisdiction. CADSI president Christyn Cianfarani said, to her knowledge, a review in such a systematic way hasn't been done for some time. She said she sees the move as positive, allowing the government to properly balance risk and acquisition. “With the launch of SSE and the Investment Plan, the deputy minister's call to review the system is timely,” she said. “In this critical period of recapitalization, we simply cannot expect to move four times the volume of procurement through the same old procurement system.” When asked about the sole-sourcing of contracts, Ms. Cianfarani said competition is just one tool to meet policy objectives. She wants more sole-sourcing to Canadian firms and more Canadian-only competitions between companies with similar capabilities, price, and proven roots in Canada. Liberals just need to decide, says Conservative critic Mr. Bezan said sole-source contracting is almost impossible to do when the country isn't at war because one must argue it's in the best interest of national security and the taxpayer. The Liberals need to be more decisive on what equipment they want to buy, he added, saying they are risk-averse. “Fighter jets is a good example. They have punted the close of the competition—making the decision—until 2021,” he said. “Most countries run these competitions in around a year, and this was launched three to four months ago ... they should be able to close this off and make a decision within six to nine months.” The Conservative government before it tried and failed to procure fighter jets for several years too, incurring political controversy along the way, with accusations of conducting a flawed process of the purchase of billions of dollars. Mr. Garrison said the NDP welcomes efficiencies in the procurement process that benefit the armed forces and support Canadian industry, as well as meet DND targets. https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/06/13/defence-deputy-minister-begin-reviewing-procurement-rules-summer/147489

WASHINGTON — As priorities in Europe evolve, particularly with the threat of Russia growing more profound, industry partners are left to adapt. Defense News spoke to Kim Ernzen, vice president of land warfare systems in Raytheon Missile Systems, to find out the company's approach to meeting customer expectations. EU and NATO cooperation on defense is evolving. As they work out roles, is it challenging for industry? From an international or global footprint, we are looking to continue to expand in international marketspaces. As we look particularly to EU and NATO starting to cooperate more, the EU brings some capabilities to the table. Obviously NATO is typically backed more from the U.S. [But] it's how we merge the capabilities together so the fighting forces have what they need when they go into harm's way. From a U.S. defense industry perspective, we like to make sure we protect the latest and greatest. When we look to international, we work through the normal releasability channels to make sure we can release our products. I think there is going to be increased opportunity, because the threats are continuing to evolve. From a pure RMS perspective, we're well positioned to support [combatting] those threats. We continue to work closely not only with the U.S.-based customer, but through them, the international partners to look at the capabilities they may need. Missile defense remains a huge priority in Europe, but how have hybrid warfare tactics, particularly from Russia, influences defense strategies and as a result the investments? As we as a nation look at how to pivot from urban warfare of the last two decades to what many would consider more traditional warfare, but with added complexities of things like cyberattacks, EW. So now you go into overmatch capability, a long-range standoff capability. Army is focused on how to get long-range precision fires that supports the [combatant commands] in the international footprints, being able to protect the European front against advancing Russia threats. And it's got to have that standup capability, they also have to be able to see further. From a company perspective, we're involved in the PRSM [program] — the new Long Range Precision Fire competition between us and Lockheed Martin. And we're also working to enhance the sighting capability on the vehicle, so they can see farther and identity threats sooner. We see a lot of exercises in Europe. Does industry have enough of a seat at the table? We don't necessarily engage one-on-one with the exercising activities that go on; we'll get feedback through customer communities. This is something we talk with our customers about continually: the more we can be engaged, the more we can bring to bear, whether company investments, a spin on the product; the more we can partner with the customer community, sooner, the better it is for them and us as well. We just haven't necessarily always done that. We've seen a great deal of emphasis on increased defense spending of our European allies. Have you seen a bump up? Or if not, where do you see them focusing in on in terms of spending? We have seen a modest increase, particularly across the munitions fronts. Everyone [is looking] in the cupboard drawer, wanting to make sure they have the right stockpiles should they need to go into any engagement with the enemy. We're also continuing to see internationally more system integrated solutions. Not just coming forward with a product, but how a system would work and operate so they can be more nimble in the battlefield. That's a transition we're seeing. The FMS system can be painful to work through. Have their been improvements? We need to look at [whether we] can start converting more programs to direct commercial sales, depending on where we're at in a lifecycle of a product, and what it is we're trying to protect or throttle. FMS is a slow an laborious process. It hinders industry from capitalizing on market opportunities. The more we can change the paradigm and partner with the government side to do more [direct sales], the more they will benefit long term because they get the volume to drive down prices, and allow us to recoup funds to invests in future technology. But there are challenges, because each branches has organizations that support foreign military sales. There's a balance. As more and more countries seek indigenous capacities as well as a return on defense investments domestically, has the nature of partnership changed? Part of partnering with some of these countries involves offset requirements. Often as we start to partner with indigenous capable industries, it used to be ok to [offer up] basic machining. But there is more pull for being able to put high levels of noble work into these countries. Some are more advanced in capabilities, and as we look to partner, how to do we strike that balance, leveraging some technology they may bring to bear, with what we're trying to keep domestically and protected? It's an interesting paradigm. And a tipping point with how U.S. industry deals with going international. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/12/as-european-defense-evolves-heres-how-industry-is-responding/

The US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) awarded Lockheed Martin a five-year follow-on contract option on 12 June worth about USD65 million to support the Navy's intermediate-level maintenance activities for MK48 torpedoes at the Pearl Harbor Heavyweight Torpedo Intermediate Maintenance Activity (IMA). The initial contract was awarded in March 2018. The Lockheed Martin MK48 Torpedo IMA Program focuses on ensuring availability and reliability of the torpedoes, Richard Dunn, programme manager for Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, said in a statement, while reducing total programme life cycle costs for the US Navy's torpedo programme. Lockheed Martin has provided specialised maintenance for the MK48 torpedoes since 2007. http://www.janes.com/article/80934/us-navy-awards-lockheed-martin-mk48-maintenance-contract