News

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND GATR Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama, a subsidiary of Cubic Corp., was awarded a $172,000,000 maximum ceiling, single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quality, firm-fixed-price contract (H92401-20-D-0003) with five one-year ordering periods for the procurement of 1.2 meter and 2.4 meter Ground Antenna Transmit and Receive (GATR) inflatable satellite communications terminals and ancillary equipment in support of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Fiscal 2020 procurements funds in the amount of $5,000 are being obligated at the time of award. The contract will be funded with operations and maintenance funds, as well as procurement funds, from multiple fiscal years over the life of the contract. The majority of the work will be performed in Huntsville and is expected to be completed by August 2025. The contract is a Phase III Small Business Innovation Research award authorized under Title 10, U.S. Code 2304(b)(2) or Title 41, U.S. Code 253(b)(2). USSOCOM, Tampa, Florida, is the contracting activity. ARMY Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing Inc.,* Grand Rapids, Michigan, was awarded a $160,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for domestic aseptic fill and finish manufacturing capacity for critical vaccines and therapeutics in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 2, 2021. Fiscal 2020 Health and Human Services funds in the amount of $160,000,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W911QY-20-C-0086). Aspen Construction Co.,* Hackensack, Minnesota, was awarded an $8,354,252 contract for Phase II redevelopment site construction in Martin, Kentucky. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work will be performed in Martin, Kentucky, with an estimated completion date of March 3, 2023. Fiscal 2020 civil construction funds in the amount of $8,354,252 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington, West Virginia is the contracting activity (W91237-20-C-0007). NAVY Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Melbourne, Florida, is awarded a $34,712,366 cost-plus-fixed-fee order (N00019-20-F-0088) against previously-issued basic ordering agreement N00019-20-G-0005. This order provides non-recurring engineering for requirements development and systems engineering technical reviews and certification planning; initial requirements change requests; procurement strategy source selection package; performance based navigation certification plan; initial system safety; cyber; program protection and exportability analysis; integrated master schedule; and other associated technical deliverables in support of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye cockpit redesign. Work will be performed in Melbourne, Florida (99.76%); and Patuxent River, Maryland (0.24%), and is expected to be completed by January 2022. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $5,785,394 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Koman Construction LLC,* Anchorage, Alaska, is awarded a $10,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with firm-fixed priced task orders that will be issued for the construction and repairs at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. The total cumulative contract value is not to exceed $10,000,000 over the duration of the contract. Work will be performed in Annapolis, Maryland, and the contract completion date is July 2021. No funds will be obligated at the time of award; funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N40080-20-D-0019). AIR FORCE Raytheon Co., Tewksbury, Massachusetts, has been awarded a $33,735,474, predominantly cost-plus-incentive-firm modification (P00068) to contract FA8730-15-C-0002 for National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) integration and alternate Air Defense Operations Center (ADOC) installation. The contract modification is for the procurement, installation, integration and testing of NASAMS into the ADOC and alternate ADOC. Work will be performed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, and is expected to be completed October 2021. This modification involves Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to Qatar. FMS funds in the in the full amount are obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $346,498,681. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, is the contracting activity. ROCCOR LLC, Longmont, Colorado, has been awarded a $15,998,168 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00003) to contract FA9453-20-C-0003 for structurally combined aperture and reticulated locking expandable truss. This modification provides for the exercise of the option where ROCCOR will develop, build and test a flight quality demonstration unit for the Air Force Research Laboratory. The system will consist of a scaled and/or truncated system that provides guidance for the structural feasibility of a full scale meter operational system. Work will be performed in Longmont, Colorado, and is expected to be completed Aug. 3, 2022. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $4,945,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $16,998,086. Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, is the contracting activity. Aptima Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts, has been awarded a $9,900,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for research and development. The purpose of this research and development contract is operational experimentation, technology refinement and operational alignment related to improving and personalizing individual, team and larger group instructional training methods and better blending of live, virtual and constructive environments in and across operational contexts. Work will primarily be performed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is expected to be completed Nov. 3, 2025. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and one offer was received. Fiscal 2020, research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,508,274 will be obligated at the time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8650-20-D-6243). *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2298575/source/GovDelivery/

Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's top IT official provided an update July 30 on a wide range of ongoing initiatives underway at the department as it continues to grapple with a remote workforce amid the coronavirus pandemic. Chief Information Officer Dana Deasy highlighted several ongoing projects related to artificial intelligence, big data and cloud computing, while also discussing the department's Commercial Virtual Remote Environment that's allowed nearly 1 million Department of Defense employees to collaborate while working from home. Here's a roundup of what Deasy told reporters: Cloud developments The Defense Department has struggled for more than a year to procure its enterprisewide cloud, known as the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, a platform DoD leadership has continuously said will break down data silos and enhance artificial intelligence capabilities. But, as Deasy has stated repeatedly, JEDI is not going to be the DoD's only cloud. “Cloud has always been much more than JEDI,” Deasy said. Work on the JEDI cloud, which was awarded to Microsoft in October last year and subsequently protested by Amazon Web Services, is on hold after a federal judge issued an injunction earlier this year upon determining it was likely the DoD erred in its evaluations of the two tech companies' proposals. The DoD is taking corrective action on the award, with Deasy saying the department intends to re-announce the winner “probably sometimes towards the very end of August, barring any last minute, unforeseen additional issues that are raised.” In the meantime, the DoD has stamped the Air Force's Platform One cloud offering as an enterprise service, giving DoD components a certified place to go for DevSecOps, Deasy said. “What the big message there was, we actually for the first time had designated a cloud across DoD that could be used for a common way of doing DevSecOps,” he said. AI and JADC2 The Joint Artificial Intelligence Center is pivoting to focus on Joint All-Domain Command and Control, a Pentagon-led effort to connect sensors and shooters. Through its Joint Common Foundation, Deasy said, the JAIC has tools and capabilities to develop AI capabilities at scale. “That has now allowed us as we've matured to say: ‘What we've always known we really need to ... get JAIC focused on is the joint all-domain space,‘ ” Deasy said, adding that the center is looking at joint fires, the electromagnetic spectrum and strategic mobility. The JAIC, he said, is working on a cognitive assistant to deliver commanders relevant data from the hoards of information that come from the battlefield to quicken decision-making. But he added that the JAIC will expand into other areas of joint all-domain operations. “JADC2 is made up of a bunch of different areas ... including electromagnetic spectrum, how do we move forces, how do we target,” Deasy said. “But right now it's all about how do you take streams of information and allow the machine and human to interact together to make better decisions.” The new chief data officer In June, the DoD announced that former Special Operations Command chief data officer Dave Spirk would become the DoD's new CDO. Deasy told reporters July 30 that Spirk will focus on “strengthening data governance, interoperability, and data protection across the department,” which he went on to describe as a “major effort.” “The chief data officer is on a directed, 90-day listening tour where he is talking to senior leaders in the Pentagon, war fighters and at the combatant commands, industry and academia to assess the overall department's progress,” Deasy said. “At the conclusion of the 90-day tour, Dave will provide a written assessment with a plan of action.” Deasy added that a DoD data strategy will be released “in the coming months.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/07/31/pentagon-cio-provides-updates-on-several-it-initiatives/

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The coronavirus pandemic has caused another delay for the U.S. Army's plagued M113 replacement program, which has struggled with manufacturing problems as the BAE Systems-made Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle entered low-rate initial production, according to the company's second quarter fiscal 2020 earnings briefing released last week. The company had to delay delivery of the first LRIP vehicles by roughly four to six months, moving delivery from March to July. But as BAE prepared to move ahead on delivery, the pandemic hit, bringing with it another delay of roughly a month, which pushed the vehicles' delivery date to August. The AMPV program entered LRIP in January 2019, but the program office indicated last year that delivery of the first vehicles would be delayed by two months and the completion of production qualification testing would be delayed by seven months due to tooling and assembly line challenges at BAE's facility in York, Pennsylvania. Because of the issues, the Army's AMPV budget request in FY21 showed the program took a hit. The service indicated it would buy 32 vehicles instead of the 143 planned for the fiscal year, and the program's budget was cut from $445 million to $193 million. The Army and BAE developed “a production approach that would allow us to incorporate efficiencies during LRIP that modernize manufacturing and increase the overall throughput of the program,” Amanda Niswonger, a BAE spokeswoman, told Defense News in an Aug. 3 statement. “This included installing new technology and processes such as robotic welding, digital X-ray, and advanced machining. And we worked closely with the Army to update and refine manufacturing processes to incorporate the most modern weld and inspection technology,” she said. “These changes had an impact on our delivery timeline which was not reflected in the original delivery schedule, but continues to meet the Army's fielding schedule.” The service and BAE had formalized the schedule change just as COVID-19 hit the U.S., which affected a large number of manufacturing facilities and supply chains globally. “We have worked tirelessly to mitigate the impacts from COVID-19 with our employees, supply network, and customer base to keep our manufacturing sites operational and continue to receive parts as needed,” Niswonger said. “Unfortunately we could not overcome all the challenges and our first delivery has slipped one month.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/08/03/pandemic-causes-latest-delay-in-us-armys-m113-replacement-program/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — After years of working various jobs related to security cooperation, Lt. Gen. Charles Hooper took over the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency in August 2017. It was an appointment that coincided with a major push by the Trump administration to increase weapon sales as an economic driver. Three years later, as he gets ready to retire, Hooper sat down with Defense News for an exclusive exit interview. This interview was edited for length and clarity. You came in as DSCA director in 2017, when the Trump administration was making a concerted push to increase arms sales abroad. Has that push been successful? Certainly I think the answer to that question is: “Yes, absolutely.” When I assumed responsibility at DSCA, we saw a convergence of three authorities that helped to create conditions that would help us to move forward and to elevate security cooperation. The first one was the fiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which [gave me] responsibilities in the Department of Defense to reform security cooperation, in ways that would make it more efficient and effective. The second one was the revision and the updating of the administration's arms transfer policies. And the third was the National Defense Strategy with which has three lines of effort, the second of which was strengthen alliances and attract new partners. So those three authorities created by convergence — what I call a perfect storm of authorities — and conditions to allow us to elevate and push for security cooperation and foreign military sales. And I made it my mission to take advantage of those conditions to move it forward. You have talked often about the need to both trim time and cost for partners and allies buying American systems. What are some highlights for you? In 2018, we lowered the admin surcharge rate from 3.5 to 3.2 percent. And since the new rates have gone into effect, our partners have saved $250 million on FMS cases. Next, we reduced the transportation rates in 2018. And since that reduction has gone into effect, since Aug. 15, 2018, our partners saved about $15 million. Then this year, we reduced the FMS contract administration surcharge from 1.2 percent to 1 percent. Although we don't have enough data as of yet to determine actual savings, we estimate that our allies and partners will save about 17 percent on contract administration over the life of each FMS case, which averages about seven or eight years. That perfect storm of authorities allowed us to move forward with many of the initiatives that we've been able to accomplish over my tenure as DSCA director. And then the Defense Security Cooperation University. I'm very proud of that, and we were able to bring that online in less than two years: The establishment of a civilian career field for security cooperation specialists, so that we are able to train and educate a cadre of people specifically focused on security cooperation, and foreign military sales through their mid-career and all the way to their capstone years. We all know one big FMS case can skew an entire year's numbers, but do you feel confident that enough has been done to ensure FMS sales will continue to grow? Although we tell everyone what the total value was of the cases that were implemented in that year, we think a three-year running average is a much more accurate measure of the success of FMS over time. And if you look at the three-year running average, over the past three years we're actually up around 16 percent, I believe. So the answer to your question is, yes, I think that we're still on a very positive trajectory. And I think that's the result of many of the changes that have taken place over the last three years that were made possible by the authorities that we were given. So for example, we looked at those surcharge [changes], we revised our financial collection policies to align collections with the actual anticipated billing requirements. And so by decreasing those early collections, foreign partners will experience less financial strain, aligning FMS procurement with fiscal realities. And we've also introduced new flexible financing options for our allies and partners to fit their own unique national budget and fiscal requirements. I'm very optimistic that we're going to continue to see positive trends in our foreign military sales this year, and in the years to come. The DSCA job is moving from a three-star role to a civilian job, with Heidi Grant taking over. You've often talked about the benefit of having years of relationships, going back to your younger officer days, with officers from other countries. Do you see any downside with the position being civilian? What's most important about this position is the person coming into it, and Heidi Grant has all the qualifications that you would need to be an exceptional DSCA director. She has time in combatant commands; of course time on the Air Force secretary's [staff]; her time as the director of the Defense Technology Security Administration. So it is the right person, with the right skill set, to be an upstanding director of DSCA and, frankly, I'm excited to see all the accomplishments that she's going to have. There is speculation that a potential Biden administration could roll back some of the arms control changes made under the Trump administration. If that were to happen, what would be the impact? I'm not going to hypothesize here about what ifs. What I can say is that we're clearly on a very positive trajectory as a result of the three steps that have taken place. And I think that the results that have come forward — I mean, the results that we've seen today are a reflection of the NDAA, the conventional arms transfer policies and National Defense Strategy. Future administrations will of course consider things as they will consider them. And I wouldn't want to speculate on that. But I think the progress we've made today speaks very, very strongly toward the effectiveness of the measures in place. We hear a lot about Russia and China looking at foreign arms sales as a way to exert influence around the globe. Are they successful in pushing the U.S. out of certain markets? Both of our main strategic competitors are mounting challenges to the United States, and I think we see that in a number of places all over the world. But I would say that the proper characterization of this is that they are challenging us. They are competing with us. Certainly they've mounted challenges around the world and in providing goods and services that are not quite the quality of the United States, trying to replace the United States as the partner of choice. Whether it's been successful or not, I think that we have recognized that they've mounted this challenge and we've taken some of the steps that I've articulated for you here that we've done to ensure that we remain the partner of choice and that we complicate their efforts to compete with us. In addition to providing partners with the hardware, our approach ensures that we strengthen these institutions — logistics, doctrine, infrastructure, institutional support, financial management — so that they can learn how to pay the people who will actually fix the equipment. And this is what makes our approach so unique. And this is why we will win this great power competition. Our values set us apart from the other great power competitors. You were the defense attache to the embassy in Beijing for two years, and obviously have a view on China's efforts from your current spot. How do you asses the country's defense export capacity? Certainly, the Chinese are going to look across the spectrum, but certainly they're looking in areas where they think they can challenge us. We know, of course, that the Chinese have marketed UAVs and other things. So they'll look for market niches in areas where they think they can be competitive with the United States. They have economic reasons for doing so, as well as strategic reasons for doing so. But once again, their approach stops at the point of sale. And this is the inherent weakness in their approach and the inherent strength in our approach. Do you think UAVs will be the main area that China targets? No. I used that solely as one example. We've seen attempts by the Chinese to compete across the spectrum, from small arms, small missile sets and others all the way up to more sophisticated equipment such as UAVs and others. We've seen a comprehensive effort by the Chinese to compete across the spectrum of defense articles and services. And I think we've seen a comprehensive effort on their part to try and market systems that replicate U.S. systems and U.S. capabilities across the spectrum, from small arms through artillery systems and other things. So I think we have to be vigilant across the spectrum of defense articles and services to where the Chinese are probing. I think the Chinese will generally try to press forward in areas where they sense that the U.S. position is perhaps a bit weaker, and they will push forward in those areas. And I think rather than having a strategy of competing in any particular sector of defense articles and services, I think that they're more interested in trying to compete across the spectrum, where what they perceive to be potential areas where they might be able to make some advances, and moving forward in those. In what areas is the U.S. potentially vulnerable, and are those where the U.S. needs to increase sales? I don't look at it that way. Defense exports are driven by a rapidly evolving security environment and emerging threats. And so we can't really predict this system or that system, or this category of systems. That said, we know what our military leaders are saying: that [the capabilities] they need in the field to ensure our strategic and operational edge [is what] our allies and partners will want as we move into the more modern areas of conflict. In the past, there was a lag between when the United States would introduce a system and when our allies and partners would ask for us to export it, and those days are behind us. We're in a world where interoperability is the key to success, and we cannot afford to have delays in when we introduce new technology and when we consider exporting them. Now, there are inherent challenges here, between conducting the cost-benefit analysis of risk versus gain, but we have the talent and the ability to rapidly assess these, and to move forward and provide our partners their defense articles and services that they want and that they need, and that will make them better allies and partners for the United States. So rather than predict any particular segment, I would say that the steps that we're taking to improve our overall approach will ensure that whatever the evolution of systems and the evolution of threats is, we will be able to respond and react quickly, and work with our allies and partners to provide them those defense articles and services in a timely fashion. Both the commercial and defense industries are investing heavily in new technologies, including artificial intelligence, which can be tricky to export. How does this work going forward? That's a great question. And I'll tell you, early this year I took a visit out to Silicon Valley and Stanford, and had an opportunity to talk to some of the people out there. Ever since I came back from that trip, I've been thinking about this question and related questions. And, to be honest with you, I think we've yet to determine — we know that this will be one of the principal challenges for security cooperation moving forward. We absolutely know this. And I'm confident that we're thinking deeply about this because I've had this discussion with my colleagues and others. I don't have any solutions for you right now. But I think we've all come to the conclusion that the rapid evolution of technology is going to require us to conduct risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis more quickly, without sacrificing the due diligence necessary to determine the relative cost and benefits of whether or not we want to move forward with [exporting] a certain technology. We all recognize that we have a challenge to come together and determine how we will move forward in the security cooperation realm to address space, cyber, artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. Should there be a hard and fast rule for whether technology like AI can be exported, given its nature? Listen, never ever forget that security cooperation is a policy function at its core. That's why DSCA resides in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. And policy is a process of adjudicating on a case-by-case basis, based upon a number of economic, diplomatic and political factors, as well as the right steps to take to secure the security of the United States. Just as security cooperation now is a case-by-case consideration of a number of factors, I don't see why, as the technology evolves, it would be any different. All of this, everything we do, is on a case-by-case basis because our national security is predicated on a comprehensive assessment of the situation as it exists, the factors impacted on that situation and the ramifications of a decision for the security of the United States. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2020/08/03/us-weapon-sales-boss-talks-china-arms-exports-and-his-agencys-future/

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — American firm Raytheon Technologies and Israeli-based Rafael Advanced Defense Systems have formed a joint venture to build the Iron Dome missile defense system in the United States, the companies announced Aug. 3. Under the name Raytheon Rafael Area Protection Systems, the partnership is being set up to build a first-ever Iron Dome “all-up-round” facility stateside. The facility will build Iron Dome systems, the Tamir interceptor and launcher, and the SkyHunter missile (the U.S. version of Tamir), according to a Rafael-issued statement. Tamir and SkyHunter are capable of intercepting cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft, rockets, artillery, mortars and other threats. The partnership expects to finalize a site location before the end of the year, the statement said. “This will be the first Iron Dome all-up-round facility outside of Israel, and it will help the U.S. Department of Defense and allies across the globe obtain the system for defense of their service members and critical infrastructure,” Sam Deneke, vice president of Raytheon Missiles & Defense's land warfare and air defense business. Rafael and Raytheon have had a long partnership developing and manufacturing Iron Dome. The system is widely fielded in Israel and, according to Rafael, is “the world's most-used system with more than 2,500 operational intercepts and a success rate exceeding 90 percent.” The U.S. Army has chosen Iron Dome as an interim capability to counter cruise missiles while it continues to develop a future Indirect Fires Protection Capability, or IFPC, to counter those threats as well as enemy drones, rockets, artillery and mortars. Congress mandated the service buy two batteries to cover urgent cruise missile defense gaps, and another set of two if the Army didn't come up with a way forward for its enduring IFPC. While the Army has said it will not buy all-up Iron Dome systems as part of the IFPC program, officials developing the capability are looking at the possibility of incorporating parts of Iron Dome in the final solution. The Army plans to field Iron Dome by the end of the year, but it will still take time to train troops on the system before deployment. Some lawmakers are urging the Army to rapidly deploy the systems to the Middle East, arguing U.S. and coalition forces there need the protection from Iran and its proxies. In and analysis conducted by the Army, it was concluded the Iron Dome launcher and the Tamir interceptor's performances are “highly reliant” on their own battle management systems and multimission radars. The analysis also determined that the launcher and interceptor would be a viable option for an enduring IFPC solution as long as it worked on the Army's future Integrated Air-and-Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS, which is under development, according to a report sent to Congress earlier this year. But Gen. Mike Murray, the head of Army Futures Command, which is in charge of the service's modernization efforts, testified before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year that the Army has struggled to integrate Iron Dome into its IBCS system, mostly because the Israeli government has refused to provide critical source code needed for the integration. The Tamir interceptor's performance data proves its effectiveness when used within the Iron Dome system, but since data is lacking, it's uncertain how well it would perform when linked through IBCS to the Sentinel radar, which is used to alert air defense weapons of threats, the report noted. The service will conduct a shoot-off of best available options for integration into an enduring IFPC solution in the third quarter of fiscal 2021. The U.S. Marine Corps is also evaluating the system. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/08/03/raytheon-and-rafael-to-build-iron-dome-in-us/

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army has awarded Boeing a $265 million contract to build nine more MH-47G Block II Chinook helicopters for the service's Special Operations Aviation Command, according to a July 31 Defense Department contract announcement. The company is now under contract to build 24 of the G-model Chinooks. The service is expected to buy 69 special operations variants. The original plan was to procure 473 F-model Block II helicopters for the active force as well, but the Army decided in its fiscal 2020 budget request not to buy them for the conventional force and only field the latest variant to special operations, which was much in need of a replacement for the variant in its fleet. The service's decision to cut the aircraft from the active force was based on the need to free up future cash to cover the cost of an ambitious plan to buy two new future vertical lift aircraft for long-range assault and attack reconnaissance missions. Congress has since opposed the move, injecting $28 million in FY20 funding into the program to purchase long-lead items to manufacture F-model Block II Chinooks for the active Army. The Army's FY21 budget again provided no funding for the program. A similar plus-up in the congressional FY21 spending bill could continue to push the service back in the direction of buying more Block II variants. The contract award is the third in a series of awards to buy G-model Chinooks. Boeing received contracts in 2018 and 2019 as well. The Army approved the Block II effort to move into the engineering and manufacturing development phase in April 2017, and the program officially began in July 2017. The aircraft began flying in tests in mid-2019. The upgrades in the Block II version include newly designed rotorblades, major changes to the drive system and other improvements like non-segmented fuel cells. The aircraft is expected to buy back roughly 4,000 pounds of additional load capacity and adds range capability. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/07/31/boeing-wins-265-million-to-build-more-special-ops-chinook-helos

Steve Trimble July 31, 2020 Details of the first of two mostly secret initiatives to support the U.S. Air Force's five-year-old pursuit of a sixth-generation successor to the Lockheed Martin F-22 are now released and reveal that a critical technology for the Next-Generation Air Dominance program could become flightworthy by mid-2025. GE Aviation and Pratt & Whitney are scheduled to complete separate competitive designs for a Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) system by the second quarter of 2022 and finish assessments on a full-scale engine three years later, according to Air Force budget documents. The schedule and spending details on the NGAP appeared for the first time in the Air Force's budget justification documents for fiscal 2021 that were submitted to Congress in February, but passed unnoticed for several months. The Air Force awarded GE and Pratt each a $427 million contract to support the NGAP program, but the details were shrouded in budget documents within the related Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), an unclassified effort to develop a reengining candidate for the Lockheed F-35. After Senate authorizers cited the Air Force's lack of transparency for justifying a $270 million budget cut for AETP this year, service officials decided to break out funding for the NGAP in budget documents. In fact, the NGAP program reappeared in the fiscal 2021 budget documents for the first time in more than six years. The Air Force has kept all details about the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program highly secret since 2016, but there was a brief, two-year window in 2014-15 when senior defense officials provided information about the underlying technology development efforts. The NGAP was first referenced in testimony by Alan Shaffer before House Armed Services Committee in March 2014. Shaffer is now the deputy to Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. Six years ago, he was the principal deputy to the director for research and engineering. In that role, Shaffer introduced the NGAP as an enabler to the NGAD program, along with another, complementary initiative focused on new airframes. “This program will develop and fly two X-plane prototypes that demonstrate advanced technologies for future aircraft,” Shaffer said in 2014. “Teams will compete to produce the X-plane prototypes, one focused on future Navy operational capabilities, and the other on future Air Force operational capabilities.” A year later, Frank Kendall, then undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, elaborated on the Aerospace Innovation Initiative (AII). The development of the X-planes would be led by DARPA, he said. “To be competitive, the Navy and the Air Force each will have variants focused on their mission requirements,” Kendall said. “There will be a technology period leading up to development of the prototypes. This will lead to the systems that ultimately will come after the F-35.” The results of the AII program have not been released or even acknowledged by Air Force or defense officials since 2015, but the initiative suggests that one or two X-plane aircraft could be in testing now. Kendall's remarks to Congress in 2015 came a year before the Air Force received the results of an Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team on the Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan, which urged the development of a family of systems anchored by a next-generation fighter to replace the F-22. The Flight Plan prompted the Air Force to commission an analysis of alternatives (AoA) in late 2016. The results of that study were originally scheduled to be released by the end of 2017, but the analysis continued until early 2019. Meanwhile, a 2015 presentation by the Air Force Research Laboratory showed a notional schedule for the NGAD program; a contract award to launch the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase is set for fiscal 2023. As late as the Air Force's fiscal 2019 budget request, the financial resources devoted to the NGAD appeared to support that schedule: A significant increase in funding starts in fiscal 2023, and $13 billion is set aside overall between fiscal 2019 and 2023. Last year, however, as the results of the AoA study became available, the Air Force appeared to defer the launch of the EMD by at least a few years. The fiscal 2020 budget request included only $6.6 billion for the NGAD from fiscal 2020-24. Funding for the NGAD and NGAP programs is accounted for separately in Air Force budget documents. The fiscal 2021 budget justification documents reveal that the Air Force spent $106 million for the NGAP in fiscal 2019. Another $224 million is allocated to the NGAP this year. But the program has requested an additional $403 million in fiscal 2021, the budget documents show. “The Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion effort consists of four phases: preliminary design, detailed design, engine fabrication and engine assessments,” the Air Force's budget documents state. “Program deliverables include military adaptive engine detailed design parameters and models, engine hardware (plus spare parts), matured technologies, major rig assessment data (controls, combustor, etc.), program reviews, and technology, affordability and sustainability studies for next generation fighter aircraft,” the documents add. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/budget-shows-flightworthy-sixth-generation-fighter-engines

From the U.S. quest to replace its Apache helicopters to India's effort to replenish its air force fighter and naval rotorcraft fleets, every corner of the globe is looking for new military aircraft. Aviation Week editors highlight a few of those contests – to discuss how those are being affected by the COVID pandemic and how the fortunes of companies may rise or fall based on the outcomes. This webinar was sponsored by Raytheon Technologies Listen to the panel in the full recording. Panelists: Craig Caffrey, Senior Aerospace Industry Analyst, Forecast & MRO, Aviation Week Network Michael Tint, Senior Manager, Defense Research & Analytics, Aviation Week Network Steve Trimble, Defense Editor, Aviation Week Network Moderated by Jen DiMascio, Executive Editor, Defense & Space, Aviation Week Network https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/ad-week-webinars/webinar-top-defense-aircraft-competitions

NEWS PROVIDED BY Public Services and Procurement Canada Jul 31, 2020, 12:49 ET GATINEAU, QC, July 31, 2020 /CNW/ - The Government of Canada is committed to providing members of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) with the aircraft they need to do their jobs, while ensuring the best possible value for Canadians. Today marked a significant milestone in the process to replace Canada's fighter aircraft fleet. In response to the formal Request for Proposals released last summer, the following eligible suppliers have submitted proposals: Swedish Government—SAAB AB (publ)—Aeronautics with Diehl Defence GmbH & Co. KG, MBDA UK Ltd., and RAFAEL Advanced Defence Systems Ltd. United States Government—Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company) with Pratt & Whitney United States Government—The Boeing Company with Peraton Canada Corp., CAE Inc., L3 Technologies MAS Inc., GE Canada and Raytheon Canada Limited Services and Support Division The proposals will be rigorously evaluated on elements of capability (60%), cost (20%) and economic benefits (20%). During the evaluation, a phased bid compliance process will be used to ensure that bidders have an opportunity to address non-compliance related to mandatory criteria in their proposals. The initial evaluation of proposals is anticipated to be completed by spring 2021, at which point Canada may choose to enter into dialogue with two or more compliant bidders and request revised proposals. Canada will finalize terms with the preferred bidder prior to the contract award, which is anticipated in 2022. Delivery of the first aircraft is expected as early as 2025. Quotes "I am extremely proud of the hard work and dedication in reaching this important milestone in the fighter fleet procurement process. I am confident that we will deliver on the government's commitment to provide the Royal Canadian Air Force with the right fighter jet, at the right price, with the right social and economic benefits for Canadians." The Honourable Anita Anand Minister of Public Services and Procurement "Through our fully costed and funded defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, our government committed to purchasing a full fleet of 88 aircraft to be able to meet our NORAD and NATO obligations simultaneously. Efficient and modern fighter jets are an integral part of any air force and we continue to work diligently to make sure that we provide the members of the Royal Canadian Air Force the tools they need to protect Canada, both at home and abroad." The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan Minister of National Defence "This project represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to support the competitiveness and growth of Canada's aerospace and defence industries. Our government will evaluate each of these proposals based on their plans to invest in Canada's economy and to support high-value Canadian jobs." The Honourable Navdeep Bains Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Quick facts As part of its defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the government is acquiring 88 advanced fighter jets. This is the most significant investment in the RCAF in more than 30 years and is essential for protecting the safety and security of Canadians and meeting international obligations. Officials have conducted extensive engagement with Canadian aerospace and defence industries to ensure that they are well positioned to participate in the procurement. Canada's Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, including Value Proposition applies to this procurement. This is expected to generate high-value jobs and economic growth for Canadian aerospace and defence businesses for decades to come. Bidders were required to demonstrate how they will fulfill the Government of Canada's economic benefits requirements. Those providing contractual guarantees will receive higher points in the evaluation of the Value Proposition. An independent fairness monitor is overseeing the entire process, to ensure a level playing field for all potential bidders. An independent third-party reviewer was also engaged to assess the quality and effectiveness of the procurement approach. Associated links Future Fighter Capability Project National Defence: Fighter jets Integrating Australian jets into the current Royal Canadian Air Force fighter fleet Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook SOURCE Public Services and Procurement Canada For further information: Cecely Roy, Press Secretary, Office of the Honourable Anita Anand, 343-549-7293, cecely.roy@canada.ca; Media Relations, Public Services and Procurement Canada, 819-420-5501, media@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca Related Links www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-receives-proposals-to-replace-its-fighter-jets-801677231.html