News

DoD also looking for tens of billions in extra funding from the White House, public still waiting for specifics on where it will go. By PAUL MCLEARYon June 22, 2020 at 3:16 PM WASHINGTON: The Pentagon knows it needs “lower double digit billions” to cope with COVID-19 related costs, but remains vague about just how much money it is asking the White House to add to the $740 billion already requested for 2021. Defense officials disclosed weeks ago that a request was on its way, and it is now with the White House Office of Management and Budget waiting for approval. The money will be part of a large-scale effort to cover defense industry claims of supply chain and workforce reductions as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, and is covered explicitly by Section 3610 of the coronavirus relief package. Under that rule, contractors can ask the Pentagon and other federal agencies to cover things mandated by new government rules like personal protective equipment, cleaning, and staggering work shifts. Speaking with reporters at the Pentagon this morning, acquisition chief Ellen Lord said “sooner is better, I think, is the best way to put it,” when asked about when the funds will be available. Lord repeated the timeline she has been referring to for weeks, saying “we continue to assess a three-month slowdown to all programs due to COVID-19,” she said, “we have seen inefficiencies across most programs. COVID-19 is shutting down defense manufacturing facilities and production lines, disrupting supply chains and distressing the financial stability of the companies DoD relies on to protect the nation.” The vast majority of defense firms have operated at at least some reduced capacity over the past several months, and Lord said the Pentagon continues to see the biggest impacts in the aviation and ship building supply chains” In order to spur the system, the DoD has sped up planned payments to the defense industry, hitting the $2 billion mark in recent days, and each of the large prime contractors have “confirmed their detailed plans to work with their supply chains to accelerate payments to identify distressed companies, and small businesses.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/dod-seeks-billions-more-for-covid-related-delays

NAVY General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Connecticut, is awarded an $869,043,785 cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-17-C-2117. This modification includes continued design completion, engineering work, affordability studies and design support efforts for the Columbia Class fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Work will be performed in Groton, Connecticut (41%); Quonset Point, Rhode Island (14%); and Newport News, Virginia (2%), with other efforts performed at various sites throughout the U.S. (43%). This modification also includes submarine industrial base development and expansion efforts as part of the integrated enterprise plan and multi program material procurement supporting Columbia SSBNs and the nuclear shipbuilding enterprise (Virginia class and Ford class). The contract modification also provides additional United Kingdom (U.K.) Strategic Weapon Support System kit manufacturing and effort to support expansion of the domestic missile tube industrial base. Specific effort includes design completion associated with the SSBN 827 technical variance documentation; non-recurring design effort for scope changes between the SSBN 826 and SSBN 827; design for affordability; lead ship component development lead yard support; follow ship lead yard support; and implementation of enhanced cyber security measures. Further, the action includes U.K. Strategic Weapon Support System kit manufacturing; expansion of the domestic missile tube industrial base; and submarine industrial base supplier development efforts. The submarine industrial base development and expansion efforts improve sub-tier vendor stability and gains economic efficiencies based on production economies for major components. The nuclear shipbuilding industrial base continues to ramp up production capability to support the increased demand associated with the Navy's Force Structure Assessment. Improved capacity at the sub-tier vendors reduces risk across nuclear shipbuilding programs. The contract modification includes a fully priced option for the construction of SSBN 826 and SSBN 827, associated design and engineering support. For SSBN 827, the modification covers advance procurement, advance construction and subsequent fiscal 2024 construction of SSBN 827. This option is required to support October 2020 construction start of the SSBN 826. If the option is exercised, the cumulative value of this contract will increase to $9,473,511,245. Work is expected to be complete by December 2031. The industrial base development work is for the furtherance of the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 116-92) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020 (Public Law 116-93), which authorized and appropriated additional funds for submarine industrial base development and expansion to ensure second and third-tier contractors are able to meet increased production requirements. This is a joint U.S. and U.K. program; U.S. fiscal 2020 national sea-based deterrence funds in the amount of $31,903,052 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., Poway, California, is awarded a $26,866,441 firm-fixed-price contract that procures two MQ-9A Reaper unmanned air systems (UAS); one dual control mobile ground control station; one modular data center; and one mobile ground control station for Group 5 UAS intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance services/persistent strike efforts. Work will be performed in Yuma, Arizona (40%); and various locations outside the continental U.S. (60%), and is expected to be complete by December 2020. Fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds for $26,866,441 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-20-C-0031). (Awarded June 19, 2020) Alabama Shipyard LLC, Mobile, Alabama, is awarded a $23,752,381, firm-fixed-price contract for a 96-calendar day shipyard availability for the regular overhaul and dry docking of the USSN Ship Supply (T-AOE 6). Work will be performed in Mobile, Alabama, and is expected to be complete by November 2020. This contract includes one base period and 10 options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $26,361,776. Working capital funds (Navy) in the amount of $23,752,381 are obligated for fiscal 2020 and 2021, and will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured with proposals solicited via the Government Point of Entry website, and one offer was received. The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N32205). Pacific Maritime Industries,* San Diego, California (N00244-20-D-0005); Marine & Restaurant Fabricators,* San Diego, California (N00244-20-D-0006); and JPL Habitability,* National City, California (N00244-20-D-0007), are awarded an estimated $23,192,490 for multiple award, firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to provide shipboard furniture supplies to renovate spaces onboard Navy ships. Work will be performed at all three contractor locations San Diego, California; and National City, California (collectively 70% as breakdown cannot be determined at this time); and Naval Base San Diego, San Diego, California (30%). Incidental services involve preparation of spaces and installation. Related tasks may include, but are not limited to, overheads, decks, bulkheads, furniture, rearrangements, new arrangements, fabrication of shipboard furniture and food service items, installation and removals, etc. The contract will include a one-year base period and two one-year option periods and the total value of this contract will have a ceiling price of $23,192,490, if exercised. The ordering period of the contract is expected to be complete by June 2021; if all options are exercised, the ordering period will be complete by June 2023. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $52,500 will be obligated ($17,500 on each of the three contracts to fund the contracts' minimum amounts) and funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Delivery orders will be subsequently funded with appropriate fiscal year appropriations at the time of their issuance. This contract was competitively procured with the solicitation posted on beta.sam.gov as a total small business set-aside requirement with three offers received. The Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center San Diego, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity. The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a $12,522,521 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee order (N61340-20-F-0096) against previously issued basic ordering agreement N00019-16-G-0001. This order procures non-recurring engineering in support of establishing a functional configuration baseline in support of the production and delivery of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out (ADS-B Out) A-kits and B-kits for the T-45 Training System. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (97%); Mesa, Arizona (1%); and various locations within the continental U.S. (2%). This order provides for the procurement of B-kits, to include air data computers and A-kits, which consist of associated wiring, splitters and filters and spares. This order also provides kit integration, follow-on analysis and engineering in support of issues that may arise during kit production and installation. Work is expected to be complete by January 2023. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,109,441; fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $4,516,503; and fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $1,387,476 will be obligated at time of award; $7,109,441 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity. (Awarded June 19, 2020) FGS LLC, LaPlata, Maryland, is awarded a $9,760,698 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. This contract procures network video teleconference equipment for the integrated command control and intelligence divisions integration of specialized network video teleconference systems in support of the command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions of the Joint Staff and combatant commanders, Department of Defense agencies and services, and Department of Homeland Security operational and support components. Work will be performed in LaPlata, Maryland, and is expected to be complete by June 2022. No funds will be obligated at the time of award, but will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposal and two offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (N68335-20-D-0029). Innovative Defense Technologies LLC,* Arlington, Virginia, is awarded a $9,738,679 cost-plus-fixed-fee order (N68335-20-F-0349) against previously issued basic ordering agreement N68335-19-G-0036. This order provides for continued research and development efforts under Small Business Innovation Research topic N171-012, titled “Transition of Mission Planning Software to a Next Generation Component Based, Open Architecture using Advanced Refactoring Technology;” topic N07-137, titled “Artifact Assessment Tool Suite Infrastructure;” and topic N171-049, titled “Cyber Resiliency via Virtualization for Combat System.” Work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama (58%); Mt. Laurel, New Jersey (20%); Arlington, Virginia (20%); and Fall River, Massachusetts (2%). This order provides further research and development of the Next-Generation Open Architecture (NGOA) Mission Planning System. The NGOA Mission Planning System includes a combat management system architecture that enables rapid software changes and fleet fielding, and an artificial intelligence/machine learning based dynamic mission planning capability that spans fleet-level and individual platform-level planning. Work is expected to be complete by June 2021. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds for $9,403,719 will be obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity. The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, is awarded a $9,000,000 modification (P00004) to firm-fixed-price order N00019-19-F-2963 against previously issued basic ordering agreement N00019-16-G-0001. This modification procures research and development support for airworthiness assessment activities associated with wing stores and configurations to be analyzed with the Wideband Satellite Communication radome for P-8A airworthiness certification and flight tests for the Navy and government of Australia. Work will be performed in Seattle, Washington (85%); and Patuxent River, Maryland (15%), and is expected to be complete by September 2021. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test, and evaluation (Navy) funds for $500,000; and foreign cooperative project funds for $3,000,000 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. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Bethpage, New York, is awarded an $8,902,824 cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-only modification to previously awarded contract N00024-17-C-6311 for basic outfitting assembly (BOA) installation labor and BOA installation labor other direct costs to support the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mission Modules Program. Work will be performed in Port Hueneme, California (80%); and Bethpage, New York (20%). The LCS Mission Modules Program provides the fleet with sets of mission capabilities that are packaged as mission modules and combined into mission packages to maximize the affordability for the utility of LCS sea frames. Each mission module makes use of common support containers whose designs are based upon an International Organization for Standardization-compliant base shipping container. The “base” container is built to print with adjustable interior rails that can be reconfigured for a variety of applications. Work is expected to be complete by June 2021. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $199,400 will be obligated at time of award. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY Lincoln Public School, Lincoln, Massachusetts, is being awarded an $85,722,108 firm-fixed-price contract for comprehensive educational program services for Pre-K-grade 12 and special education services. The place of performance will be at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts. The period of performance is one 12-month base period and four 12-month option years. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funding in the amount of $15,909,600 will be obligated on this award. This contract was awarded as full and open competition in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 (contracting by negotiation). The Department of Defense Education Activity, Alexandria, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HE1254-20-C-0005). Caesar Rodney School District, Camden-Wyoming, Delaware, is being awarded a $54,322,239 firm-fixed-price contract for comprehensive educational program services for K-grade 12 and special education services. The place of performance will be at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. The period of performance is one 12-month base period and four 12-month option years. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funding in the amount of $9,844,731 will be obligated on this award. This contract was awarded as full and open competition in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 (contracting by negotiation). The Department of Defense Education Activity, Alexandria, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HE1254-20-C-0003). ARMY VisionCorps, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $24,381,000 firm-fixed-price contract to procure Integrated Head Protection System Suspension systems. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 18, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W91CRB-20-D-0009). The University of Maine System, Orono, Maine, was awarded a $19,915,332 cost-no-fee contract for expeditionary maneuver support materials and structures. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Orono, Maine, with an estimated completion date of June 22, 2025. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Army) funds in the amount of $3,215,332 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W911QY-20-C-0053). Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc.,* Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $16,570,397 firm-fixed-price contract for 900 CELLECTRA 2000 DNA vaccine injection devices. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2020 defense emergency response funds in the amount of $16,570,397 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W911QY-20-C-0084). (Awarded June 19, 2020) Airborne Systems North America of California Inc., Santa Ana, California, was awarded a $13,231,241 firm-fixed-price contract for spare components for the RA-1 Parachute System. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 22, 2026. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-20-D-0076). Oshkosh Defense LLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, was awarded a $10,564,760 modification (P00097) to contract W56HZV-15-C-0095 for field service representatives to provide maintenance to Joint Light Tactical Vehicles during an exercise being conducted by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 31, 2023. Fiscal 2020 Foreign Military Sales (United Kingdom) funds in the amount of $10,564,760 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, is the contracting activity. Winston-Salem Industries For The Blind Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was awarded an $8,127,000 firm-fixed-price contract to procure Integrated Head Protection System Suspension Systems. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 21, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W91CRB-20-D-0010). CORRECTION: A $7,985,880 contract modification announced on June 18, 2020, to DRS Sustainment Systems Inc., St. Louis, Missouri (W56HZV-16-C-0028), for seven Joint Assault Bridge Systems, incorrectly included an estimated completion date of May 11, 2024. The estimated completion date is actually Dec. 30, 2021. *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2228273/source/GovDelivery/

By: Capt. Walker D. Mills and Lt. Joseph Hanacek The Navy intends to acquire up to 30 new light amphibious warships, or LAW, to support new Marine Corps requirements. The vessels are needed to meet the challenges of “evolving threats in the global maritime environment,” according to the Navy program office, and are tied to the new operational concepts of Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations and Distributed Maritime Operations as well as the Marine Corps' Force Design 2030 effort. Once complete, the acquisition will have almost doubled the number of L-class amphibious ships already in naval service. Rather than accepting a new amphibious design built from the ground up, however, decision-makers should take advantage of the fact that many key requirements of the new vessels are very similar to the capabilities of vessels operated by U.S. Army Transportation Command. The Navy and Marine Corps should delay any new construction and immediately acquire some of these existing vessels to drive experimentation and better inform their requirements for the LAW program. The key requirements of the future LAW include having 8,000 square feet of cargo space, a range of 3,500 miles, a speed of up to 14 knots, accommodation for a crew of up to 40 Navy personnel and 75 embarked Marines, and up to 200 feet in length. The vessel also needs to have a roll-on/roll-off capability, preferably with a stern ramp. U.S. Army Transportation Command has over 100 vessels, and dozens have similar capabilities to those required of the LAW. The Army's LCU-2000s, also called the Runnymede-class large landing crafts, are smaller, with roughly half of the cargo space designed for the LAW and slightly slower, but they boast nearly double the range. The Runnymede-class vessels have nearly 4,000 square feet of cargo space and can travel 6,500 miles when loaded and at 12 knots; and they can unload at the beach with their bow ramp. The Army's General Frank S. Besson-class logistics support vessels are larger than the future LAW, at 273 feet in length but can claim 10,500 square feet of cargo space and a 6,500-mile range loaded to match the LCU-2000. These vessels also have both a bow and stern ramp for roll-on/roll-off capability at the beach or ship-to-ship docking at sea. The version built for the Phillipine military also has a helipad. Army Transportation Command has 32 Runnymede-class and eight General Frank S. Besson-class vessels in service. Mostly built in the 1990s, both classes of vessel have many years left in their life expectancy and more than meet the Navy's 10-year life expectancy for the LAW. These vessels are operable today and could be transferred from the Army to the Navy or Marine Corps tomorrow. In fact, the Army was attempting to divest itself of these watercraft less than a year ago, which underscores the importance of this opportunity even further. Congress is firmly set against the Army getting rid of valuable, seaworthy vessels and has quashed all of the Army's efforts to do so thus far, but transferring this equipment to the Navy is a reasonable course of action that should satisfy all parties involved. While acquiring “surplus” military equipment might lack the allure and promise of designing a new ship class from the ground up, the reality of the situation is that this overlapping of service needs couldn't come at a better time. By acquiring a watercraft that meets most of their requirements from the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps simultaneously fill current capability gaps and obtain an invaluable series of assets they can use to support the evaluation and experimentation of new designs and concepts. This will allow Navy and Marine leaders to give their units the maximum amount of time to evaluate and experiment with new designs to get a better idea of what they need both in future amphibious craft as well as operational and support equipment. The significance of so rapidly acquiring the Army's amphibious craft isn't just limited to developing a better amphibious force either. There is a very real capability gap that exists in the fleet today in the areas of surplus seagoing capacity, and acquiring these Army watercraft would go an extremely long way toward addressing it. Often overlooked, the availability of surplus vessels is absolutely critical to the process of developing new technologies, developing the tactics to employ them, conducting training, and providing decision-makers the requisite capacity to remain flexible in the face of unexpected challenges. The Navy and Marine Corps today are hurtling toward a new future of distributed operations and unprecedented levels of integration in the littorals. The Marine Corps commandant has clearly specified that force design is his No. 1 priority and that significant changes to the Marine Corps are in the works. At the same time, the Navy and Marine Corps continue to serve as the first responders for many of the nation's emerging challenges around the globe. They've long been in need of a boost in their amphibious capabilities so as to be better positioned to meet the demands of today and prepare for the challenges of tomorrow, and taking possession of the Army's Runnymede- and Frank S. Benson-class vessels is a solution on a silver platter. Capt. Walker D. Mills is a U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer serving in Cartagena, Colombia. Lt. Joseph Hanacek is a U.S. Navy surface warfare officer based in Dam Neck, Virginia. The views expressed here are theirs alone and do not necessarily represent the views of these military branches or the Defense Department. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/22/the-us-navy-and-marine-corps-should-acquire-army-watercraft/

By: Tom Kington ROME — In mid-May, Libyans standing on a beach in the west of the country reportedly watched a Turkish frigate off the coast fire a missile, which downed a drone operated by the United Arab Emirates. The incident has not been confirmed but is consistent with Turkey's bold use of naval power in recent weeks as it takes a central role in a proxy war in Libya that has sucked in regional players from Russia and Egypt to Qatar and France. So far, Turkey's foes in Libya appear to be impressed by its show of strength. “In recent days there have been no reports of UAE drone flights against Turkish backed targets,” said Jalel Harchaoui, an analyst at the Clingendael Institute in the Netherlands. Turkey's stance in Libya shows how the Mediterranean has turned in a few years from a backwater on the fringes of Middle East turmoil to a major flash point. As Libya burns, tensions are also rising over new gas fields in the Mediterranean and Russia is re-entering the fray. The result is a new round of naval rearmament. “Tension is escalating and I see procurement following suit,” said Sidharth Kaushal, a sea power research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London. Turkish navy ships have been a constant presence off the Libyan coast since Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan sided with the U.N.-recognized Libyan government in Tripoli in its defense of the capital against an attack by Libyan strongman Gen. Khalifar Haftar. This spring, Tripoli forces backed by Syrian fighters sent in by Turkey rebuffed Haftar, despite the general receiving backing from Russian mercenaries, the UAE, Egypt and France. To help ensure the victory, Turkish vessels are thought to have given sensor support to Turkish drones as they attacked Haftar and destroyed Russian Pantsir air defense systems backing him. Turkey sails ex-Oliver Hazard Perry-class vessels it acquired second-hand from the U.S. Navy which fire surface to air missiles, and is also eyeing new frigates, said Kaushal. “They might build their own hull but would shop abroad for electronics and sensors, rather like China did in the early 2000′s,” he said. Vessels that Turkey has already deployed in the Mediterranean have been also been busy escorting cargo ships to Libya allegedly loaded with arms and supplies for fighters in Tripoli. One such cargo ship was reportedly confronted on June 10 by a European Union task force set up to stop violations of an international arms embargo on Libya, only for the Turkish frigates escorting the vessel to turn back the EU force. What makes the new tension in the Mediterranean so confusing is how old rules and alliances have been blurred. Turkey's alleged violation of the arms embargo came weeks after its vessels had joined partner navies for a NATO exercise off the Algerian coast. Turkey has meanwhile been accused of threatening Cyprus' rights to undersea gas deposits with its own plans to drill in the Mediterranean, sparking a show-of-force naval exercise by Turkey's NATO allies France and Italy to tamp down Turkey's aggression. Turkey's behavior has also rattled Egypt, said analyst Harchaoui, despite Cairo's own recent spending spree on naval assets from France, including two Mistral amphibious vessels purchased after Paris opted not to sell them to Russia, four Gowind corvettes and a FREMM frigate. Italy, which has also built FREMMs in a joint program with France, is now in talks to sell two of the vessels to Egypt. The ships are ready, since they were originally built for the Italian navy, which will now have to wait for the construction of two more ships by Italy's Fincantieri to fill its own quota. At the eastern end of the Mediterranean, Russia is meanwhile renewing its Black Sea fleet and looking to leverage its access to Syria's Tartus port to increase its naval clout in the Mediterranean as it seeks to become a player in the region, said Kaushal. “Russia wants to be able to arm all its vessels with its Kalibr cruise missile, which has previously fired 2,000 kilometers from the Caspian into Syria,” he said. “It is a very cheap way to build up power projection. Putting this type of missile on low-cost vessels is the future, Russia is setting the trend by making minimal resources go a long way, and France and Italy, as well as Greece and Turkey may follow suit,” he said. “Russia also has the P-800 Oniks supersonic anti-ship missile, which reaches 400 kilometers to 600 kilometers — and there is no Western equivalent,” he added. The build up of lethal naval hardware in the Mediterranean is also going on under the sea, with submarines returning to the area in numbers. “It is not impossible that Turkey would send submarines to Libya,” said Harchaoui. Last year Algeria test fired a Kalibr missile from one of its Kilo-class Russian submarines, while in April, Egypt took delivery of the third of four German HDW Class 209 subs it has ordered. Germany has also supplied Turkey and Greece, which operate 12 and 11 subs respectively. “There are 20-30 submarines deployable in the Mediterranean now, a higher number than 10 years ago,” said Paolo Crippa, a defense analyst at the Cesi think tank in Rome. The total number of subs operated by countries giving on to the Mediterranean is currently 63, he said. It is therefore hardly surprising the Italian Navy is increasing its focus on anti-submarine capabilities. If it does hand over two of its FREMM vessels for the Egypt deal, it will likely order the two replacements with added anti-submarine capabilities. Italy is meanwhile due to receive a new LHD vessel, the Trieste, which will host the navy's F-35Bs, while local yard Fincantieri is also building new PPA vessels for the navy. In a defense white paper drawn up in 2015, Italy said it aspired to be the top naval power in the Mediterranean. Five years on, in a much changed world, that ambition is increasingly under threat. “In terms of number of vessels, Italy's aim might be reasonable, but the political will to use a navy will always be key,” Kaushal said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/06/22/a-naval-arms-race-is-gaining-speed-in-the-mediterranean-sea/

By: Martin Banks BRUSSELS — The new head of the European Defence Agency, Jiří Šedivý, has thrown down the gauntlet to European Union member states, telling them: “It is up to you to deliver.” In an interview with Defense News, he said the onus is on EU countries “to use the EDA to its full extent.” Šedivý has extensive experience in the defense domain, having served as defense minister and deputy defense minister of the Czech Republic, NATO assistant secretary general for defense policy and planning, and permanent representative of the Czech Republic to NATO. His term comes amid a fast-changing European defense landscape and new EU defense initiatives that are under increasing pressure to deliver results. How will the COVID-19 health crisis affect European defense spending in the near, mid and long term? Let's be realistic: We are still in the middle of the pandemic and, at this stage, nobody can foresee what its exact repercussions will be. But being realistic also means that we have to anticipate, already now, that national and European defense budgets might come under pressure as a result of the massive economic and financial costs of COVID-19, whether we like it or not. Here our answer should be straightforward: Rather than cutting national defense expenditure rashly, let's coordinate, pool and share our resources and invest more in collaborative capability development because a collective approach is much more cost-effective than national solo efforts. The same goes for defense research where national ministries of defense might face problems to receive the same funding than in the past to finance their individual national programs. The best response to shrinking national budgets for defense research is to join forces and resources and to engage in more cost-effective collaborations at EU level. We therefore should maintain our European defense ambitions, keep course and pursue the implementation of the new EU defense instruments — the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) — which are all in place, fit for purpose and ready to be used. The COVID-19 crisis could offer us an unexpected and unique opportunity to reinvigorate defense cooperation in Europe. The defense portion of the proposed EU budget has come under pressure. If the European Defence Fund is indeed curtailed, how do you expect EDA to adjust its objectives? It is too early to speculate about the Fund's future budget allocation as negotiations are still ongoing. Therefore, we have to wait and see. This being said, the EDF will be an essential part of the EU's defense-cooperation toolbox, together with CARD and PESCO. Therefore, it is crucial that the Fund receives the financial means it needs to play its role properly. I thus hope for adequate funding for this important collaborative tool because for the reasons I just explained, we need more defense cooperation in the future, not less. And the Fund will serve not only as an incentive to that end, but also as a point of leverage for economic recovery. In any case, EDA's activities are not directly linked or dependent of the Fund's budget as we are an intergovernmental agency entirely and directly funded by our member states, not through the EU budget. U.S. defense companies want to be allowed to compete for EDF money and PESCO participation. How do you believe it is possible to strengthen intra-EU defense cooperation without shutting out trans-Atlantic ties at the same time? Third-party participation in the EDF is among the topics currently discussed between member states, the Commission and the European Parliament as part of the legislative process on setting up of Fund. So the jury is still out on the outcome of these talks. EDA is not involved in that process and therefore I cannot comment. However, I want to recall a basic underlying principle of European defense cooperation, namely that the European Union is fully committed to working with the U.S. as a core partner in security and defense matters. The EU defense initiatives must be understood in this context: They are not directed against our trans-Atlantic partnership but aim to enhance Europe's contribution to our common trans-Atlantic security by sharing a greater part of the burden. PESCO and EDF will help enhance EU member states' investment in the joint development of defense capabilities and deepen cooperation to make more efficient use of defense spending in the EU. The resulting defense capabilities will not be owned by the EU but by its member states. Which means they will also be available to NATO, at least for those EU member states that are NATO allies. As a result, EU cooperation ultimately also strengthens NATO as well as our trans-Atlantic partners. What is in store for the dozens of PESCO projects currently underway? For example, do you expect new ones to join the roster at some point, or some to be canceled if they fail to deliver? As you know, PESCO is a member states driven initiative. It's therefore up to the 25 participating countries to decide whether they want to launch new collaborative projects in the future. If you ask me, I expect indeed more projects to be added in the future but not this year as it was decided to skip 2020 after three consecutive waves of new projects launched — 47 in total to date — since December 2017, when PESCO was established. Focusing on the project implementation and delivering tangible outputs is thus the priority now. Equally, it is up to the member states involved in a given project to decide about possible changes or adjustments to be made or, to answer your question, even to cancel a project that would fail to deliver. It's the member states who own the projects, so it is up to them to implement them in the way they want. This being said, EDA is available and keen to support them, if they wish, in the implementation. As the European hub for collaborative capability development, we have the expertise and experience needed to do that. We therefore encourage member states to make full use of the Agency and to seek our know-how and support for bringing their PESCO projects forward. And we see that they start to rely more and more on our help. The number of PESCO projects which have been or currently are supported by the agency has constantly increased and now stands at six; two of them (in the areas of CBRN surveillance and deployable underwater capabilities) as EDA projects. Judging from informal expressions of interest received, we have reasons to expect those numbers to further grow in the future. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/06/22/new-european-defence-agency-boss-warns-against-rash-budget-cuts-by-eu-members/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — As large chunks of the country begin to scale back restrictions caused by COVID-19, the companies of the defense industrial base have largely reopened for business, the Pentagon's top acquisition official said Monday. Speaking to reporters, Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said that only 33 total companies in the industrial base, largely smaller services providers tracked by the Defense Logistics Agency, remain closed for business. “Out of 10,509 companies [the Defense Contract Management Agency] tracks: we are down to two closed, and 267 companies having closed and reopened,” Lord said in her remarks. “Out of 11,413 companies DLA tracks: 31 are closed with 661 having closed and reopened.” That is an improvement from April 30, when Lord said there were 93 defense-related companies tracked by DCMA closed, with 437 of the DLA tracked companies shut down at that time. “We see an enormous amount of recovery in the defense industrial base. It depends on location and what type of work is being performed, but there is enormous progress coming back,” she said. “Obviously, for manufacturing, we need people on the line. So, we're doing things differently in terms of following CDC guidelines and so forth. “We don't know what that new normal will be on speed, but we see an enormous amount of recovery.” Lord acknowledged that the efforts to stabilize the defense industrial base would be ongoing, noting officials “continue to see the greatest impacts both domestically and internationally in the aviation and shipbuilding supply chains.” She added that advanced progress payments to companies has hit over $2 billion, and that all of the prime contractors have “confirmed their detailed plans to work with their supply chains to accelerate payments to identify distressed companies, and small businesses.” The department is still tracking a roughly three-month period of delays that could have repercussions on major defense programs, Lord said, although she declined to give any specific examples. “We have seen inefficiencies across most programs,” Lord said. “DoD continues to partner with our industry partners to do everything possible to keep programs on schedule and to minimize the cost and schedule impacts. This is obviously a dynamic situation, and the overall impacts will not be completely known for a while as we work through how we operate over the next few months.” https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/06/22/nearly-all-defense-companies-have-reopened-from-covid-19/

By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — Producing a promised new defense and security review was never going to be straightforward for the British government, but the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and the fast-evolving geostrategic position has muddied the waters even further, leaving open the question of future investment priorities. The integrated defense, security and foreign policy review ordered by Prime Minister Boris Johnson soon after he entered office last December was meant to provide answers to how Britain would make its way in the world post-Brexit. That exercise is partly, but not entirely, on ice as the government focuses its attention on trying to control COVID-19 without putting the economy back in the Stone Age. Completion of the review has been pushed back from this summer to sometime next year. Stephan Lovegrove, the Ministry of Defence's permanent secretary, told the parliamentary public accounts committee recently that some work on the review was ongoing, with early results expected to emerge this year. “There will potentially be something direction-setting later this year. Exactly how full that is, I do not know. Our view is that the fuller it can be, the better,” Lovegrove said. One MoD official, who asked not to be named, said one of the key items now being worked on was a look at the balance of economic priorities versus national security priorities. It's a key question, the answer to which will likely set the scene for decisions on defense investment priorities for years to come. Johnson's original claim that the review would be policy driven, not financially compelled, is no longer the case — if it ever was. Independent analyst John Louth says that post COVID-19, it's going to be all about the money. “Without doubt the pandemic has changed everything. It [the review] is going to be driven by affordability,” Louth said. Defense commentator Howard Wheeldon of Wheeldon Strategic Advisory said funding was going to be a big problem across the West. “Pressures on Western governments in relation to defense spending have probably never been greater. But while we are seeing a significant awareness of the need to invest in activities like cyber, space and ISTAR we cannot afford to ignore the ongoing need to invest in conventional weapons,” he said. “China is investing heavily in air and maritime, and Russia, despite economic pressures, is increasing spend on conventional weapons. Given that COVID-19 has impacted on virtually every nation we must expect that defense spending will be impacted in the medium term,” Wheeldon said. “For the UK we must anticipate cuts in legacy systems across all three services but I am of the view that the army will bear the brunt when it comes to capacity reduction,” he added. It's not just affordability that is the issue. The pandemic is focusing the minds of parliamentarians and others on issues like homeland resilience. The military here have been lauded for their efforts supporting the fight against COVID-19 but it could eventually come at a cost, according to Doug Barrie, a senior analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank in London. “The recognition for greater societal resilience, and the associated cost of this, as a result of the pandemic threatens to be a draw on the U.K.'s armed forces in terms of personnel and future investment — this will put pressure on defense expenditure across the board,” Barrie said. “A neutral budget would be a success for MoD, but I can see some projects being postponed and platform capabilities trimmed as a near term measure,” he added. It wouldn't be so bad if the defense equipment budget was currently under control, but it's not. The National Audit Office, the government's financial watchdog, reckons the current equipment plan has been unaffordable for several years. The worst-case scenario puts the 10-year equipment budget shortfall at £13 billion (U.S. $16 billion) says the NAO. While a decision by Johnson and his advisors on Britain's strategic road map is thrashed out the MoD is living pretty much hand-to-mouth, balancing the books annually by in-year reductions in equipment spending and other measures. Lovegrove told the parliamentary committee the MoD is focusing on smaller programs to cut to leave the government with space to make decisions on more strategic issues during the defense review. Such an approach does have financial consequences, though. “What we typically seek to do is to look at some of the less strategic capabilities, which we are capable of making decisions on outside of a full-blown, multi-year strategic review, and ask difficult questions of those for the [Service] Commands. Ultimately, we would like the Commands to make their own decisions. Sometimes those are cut; more often, they are deferred and descoped,” he said. “Deferring programs in order to give ministers proper choices within a strategic context has the result of pushing the bow wave of the unbalanced budget out a year or two, making it a bit bigger,” the permanent secretary said. “There is a cumulative effect of doing what we have to do to maintain the integrity of the program of record when the balance is out of whack, in that we defer for a year, then defer for a year, then put projects on shorter rations. The bow wave becomes bigger. You see that in the nature of the more difficult financing position that we have for the next three or four years. ... So, yes, I think that the program is very tight and getting tighter,” Lovegrove warned. Without the results of the review the defense sector is operating in a bit of a vacuum on the equipment front. Louth said that ultimately what the MoD spends its money on will be dictated by an as yet unknown view of Britain's foreign policy goals in a post-coronavirus, post-Brexit era. “Where the money is invested depends what they [the government] want to do. The problem is can anybody put their hand up and say ‘we understand what theUK strategic ambition is at the moment,” he said. Despite the strategy vacuum the review likely heralds significant change to investment priorities, according to Wheeldon. “I see a huge change of approach emerging in the UK — one that will concentrate more resources on internal defense, cyber and space and less on conventional armies and battlefield activities. The UK will remain committed to air and maritime and in particular ISTAR and carrier strike. Whilst retaining the overall air and maritime commitment to the NATO alliance I envisage a shift away from front-line land systems support to that of increased ISTAR, space and cyber,” Wheeldon said. Which sectors will see the money invested ? “My money would remain very much on ensuring we have sufficient air and maritime capabilities, particularly ISTAR, and fast jet and surface and sub-surface maritime capability. Investing in space is crucial, investing in cyber is hugely important. I also remain committed to replacement of our nuclear deterrent capability,” Wheeldon said. Barrie agreed about the key requirement to invest in sectors like cyber, space and ISTAR, but cautioned that even here “ambitions will have to be shaped by budgetary reality.” In a paper published in March as the COVID-19 crisis took hold, the Royal United Services Institute's deputy director-general, Malcolm Chalmers, and Will Jessett, a former strategy director at the MoD, offered a view of Britain's defense priorities should be in the future. Britain's new policy should be encapsulated in a new doctrine of enlightened national interest, they said. “Under such an approach, the first priority for the armed forces should be the defense of the UK homeland and its immediate neighborhood. ... The shape of expeditionary forces should now be determined primarily through the need to work closely with NATO allies in defense of Europe and its immediate neighborhood,” the two analysts said. The analysts' view of local and regional defense is partly reflected in their equipment list for Britain's future forces. “Defence priorities over the coming decade need to include robust air defense of the UK (and the Republic of Ireland), strengthened coastal defenses against limited incursions, protection of infrastructure (defense and civil) against virtual and physical attack, and maintaining the ability to provide adequate support to the civil power in national emergencies,” they said in their RUSI paper. A move towards defense of the U.K. and, through NATO, its immediate neighborhood, would represent a significant shift. Just a little over 15 months ago then-Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson was making the case for Britain competing for its interests on a global playing field. “In an era of great power competition we cannot be satisfied simply by protecting our own backyard” Williamson said in a speech at RUSI. Britain has spent billions of pounds building two new F-35 equipped aircraft carriers as part of that policy and needs to invest heavily to buy additional jets and carrier strike support vessels. But a swing towards beefing up defenses in Europe may gain more traction following U.S. President Donald Trump's recent announcement he was withdrawing thousands of troops from Europe. Whether or not Trump means it, or is playing to the gallery ahead of the U.S. elections in November, is unclear, but a significant reduction in U.S. manpower would go right to the heart of NATO planning assumptions. Causing European powers like Britain to rethink how they address the need for their forces to maneuver against a potential adversary like Russia without significant US military support. Louth said the Russian's pushing west to regain territory lost since the end of the Cold War is not as unthinkable as it once was. “We have to be able to address that level of uncertainty and in defense that must be about protecting Europe's borders. What it means is you have to have an investment strategy and a capability generation process that allows you to protect those borders by being able to maneuver across a highly amorphous battlefield across a number of domains.The physicality of force goes to the heart of deterrent,” the analyst said. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/transatlantic-partnerships/2020/06/22/defense-planning-takes-a-back-seat-in-britains-struggle-to-shake-the-coronavirus/

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The former head of the U.S. Navy said in June testimony that as the service grapples with establishing the right type of force, it must account for the degraded capabilities of its allies, hinting at the once substantial Cold War-era European navies. “In my mind [there's] been an over-fixation on the total number of ships as opposed to the nuance numbers of specific types of ships that support viable operational plans,” retired Adm. Gary Roughead, former chief of naval operations, said before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. “There's also the need to understand just how small our allied navies have become, and in the past we have always looked to our allies to support us, but those navies are extraordinarily small.” NATO has for years counted on the U.S. Navy as the centerpiece of its maritime forces, with the individual European navies serving as augmenting and supporting forces. And in the post-Cold War era, Europe's navies have focused on low-end missions like counterterrorism and counter-piracy. And that has led to a precipitous decline in naval power available to surge in the event of a high-end conflict. In a 2017 study, the Center for a New American Security found that Europe's combat power at sea was about half of what it was during the height of the Cold War. “Atlantic-facing members of NATO now possess far fewer frigates — the premier class of surface vessels designated to conduct [anti-submarine warfare] ASW operations — than they did 20 years ago,” the study found. Where they collectively had about 100 frigates in 1995, that number hovers at 51 today. “Similarly, these nations had, in 1995, 145 attack submarines — those dedicated to anti-shipping and anti-submarine warfare missions — but that number has plummeted to a present low of 84,” the study found. But with the U.S. increasingly focused on Asia and amid tension within the alliance, Europe is coming to grips with the need to grow its forces and regain high-end capabilities it once had — a realization that also grew out of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. “Throughout the 1990s, the focus was low-end missions: counter-piracy, counterterrorism, migration, search and rescue,” said Sebastian Bruns, head of the Center for Maritime Strategy and Security in Kiel, Germany. “And they did so with the legacy platforms of the 1980s and 1990s. You know, sending an ASW frigate to fight piracy, well that's not a lot of bang for your buck. “But 2014, that's really the turnaround. I can't think of any European nation that's not on board with modernizing and growing their navies. But the long-lead times and having to replace the legacy units, it just takes a damned long time to turn the ship around.” But an unfortunate side effect of the long-lead times involved in force design — sometimes a decade or more — is that pre-2014 ship designs that are coming into service now are ill-suited for the high-end fight, Bruns said. The prime example of this mission mismatch is Germany's 7,200-ton Baden-Württemberg-class frigate. It began entering service in 2019, but is designed for low-end operations. “They were designed in the 2000s — they even call it a ‘stabilization frigate' — and they're coming online at a time where the German Navy needs them for presence, but they don't have the kind of teeth you'd expect for a 7,000-ton frigate,” Bruns said. “They're really capable for presence and maritime security operations, but of course that's not so much the world we live in anymore.” But new, more advanced frigates are starting to filter into the market. For example, in 2017, France's Naval Group launched a five-hull intermediate air defense frigate program designed to intercept air threats with the Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. And in January, the German Navy announced it had hired Dutch shipbuilder Damen to build at least four new MKS 180 frigates — a 9,000-ton ship designed to operate in waters with ice formations in a nod to the renewed competition in the Arctic. Payloads over platforms It's not just new frigate designs that show Europe gradually upping its game. Similar to the track the U.S. Navy has taken in fielding the Naval Strike Missile on its littoral combat ships and the Marine Corps' approach to fielding it as a shore battery, European navies have begun to upgrade their ships' systems in preparation for a high-end fight, said Jeremy Stöhs, a naval analyst who authored the book “Decline of European Naval Forces.” “What we see now is since 2014 the focus is much more on sea control, lines of communication, territorial defense,” Stöhs said. “But because of the long-lead times, it is not just the ships they're building; it's the sensor suites, midlife upgrades, focusing again on sea-denial capabilities.” Countries like the Black Sea and Scandinavian states are investing in anti-ship missiles and shore-based missile systems, he added, whereas a lot of those weapons were disbanded in the 1990s. In 2016, for example, Sweden announced it was fielding coastal batteries with Saab's RBS-15 anti-ship missile to defend its Baltic coast for the first time since 2000. The Franco-British Sea Venom anti-ship missile is being designed to launch from a helicopter such as the U.K.'s Wildcat. It recently passed its first firing trial. The missile is currently designed for small, fast-moving vessels up to Corvette-sized warships. In the Netherlands, the government announced in 2018 that their De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates would be ditching the venerable Harpoon missile for a new, more advanced surface-to-surface missile by 2024. Evolving threat, evolving politics Europe's evolution toward more high-end naval battles in many ways mirrors the United States' own pivot away from wars in the Middle East and Asia. But it's also informed by changing politics. “I'm seeing European navies pivot back to the basics: How do we handle the GIUK [Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom] gap? How do we patrol the North Atlantic? Anti-submarine warfare, convoy escort, anti-surface warfare: They are starting to come back to that,” said Jerry Hendrix, an analyst with Telemus Group and a retired Navy captain. “And as you are starting to see the new heavy German designs, they're coming back to focusing on a maritime challenger.” But with this evolution has come a realization of Europe's shortcomings and just how dependent those navies have been on the U.S. for some core capabilities. “They're starting to think about a naval force without the US present,” Hendrix said. “[German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has talked about the need for Europe to start thinking about going its own way. And by the way, I don't think that's a bad thing. I do see the interests on the continent and the U.S. going in different directions.” But a European naval construct without the U.S. would prove challenging, as many countries based their investments on the idea of a shared responsibility, with the U.S. as the main high-end capability provider, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at The Hudson Institute. “NATO, in theory, still has the NATO strategic concept where different countries were going to specialize in different capabilities, which led to the Finns and Swedes really embracing amphibious capabilities for small-scale, special operations forces insertion. The Brits and Italians focused on ASW. But without the U.S. acting as the strategic centerpiece, the strategic concept starts to fall apart. “The concept assumes you have someone that has a multimission capability that you can augment, as opposed to: ‘We're going to pull all this together without the U.S. from a bunch of disparate countries with disparate capabilities.' ” That situation means any NATO action with just European nations would need a lot of participation, he said. “Before, if you had just the U.S. and three or four nations participating, you'd have a pretty robust, multimission capability” Clark said. “But without the U.S., you'd need half the alliance to contribute so as to not miss out on key mission areas.” And without the robust U.S. logistics system, countries would have to replace not just the high-end weapons and sensors, but much of the support infrastructure as well. That could mean even more downward pressure on how much capability Europe can bring to bear. “If you have to expend weapons or do extensive resupply or refueling, the whole model starts to break down,” Clark added. “The way the European navies are structured, they don't have this end-to-end capability to deliver on all the support missions as well. “So if they have to invest in a significant combat logistics force, with budgets for defense being limited, that's going to mean their navies will potentially become even smaller.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/transatlantic-partnerships/2020/06/22/with-challenges-aplenty-europes-navies-are-coming-to-grips-with-high-end-warfare/

AIR FORCE Federal Resources, Stevensville, Maryland; W.S. Darley & Co., Itasca, Illinois; US21 Inc., Fairfax, Virginia; Atlantic Diving Supply Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Tactical & Survival Specialties Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia, have been awarded a $950,000,000, 10-year, multiple-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide equipment, training and product support to approximately 3,500 Air Force Special Warfare operators, as well as authorized users in support of Special Warfare mission requirements. Work will be performed at various U.S. locations, and is expected to be completed June 2030. These awards are the result of a competitive acquisition with 17 offers received. Fiscal 2019 other procurement funds in the amount of $2,000 will be obligated on the initial order placed against each of the contracts. Air Force Life cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (FA8629-20-R-5003). Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded an estimated $44,055,036 firm-fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contract for contractor engineering and technical services engine support for Air National Guard and Foreign Military Sales partners. Work will be performed in Thailand; Iraq; Jordan; Taiwan; Turkey; Bahrain; Morocco; Egypt; Chile; Pakistan; Indonesia; Oman; Utah; Texas; and Florida, and is expected to be completed June 30, 2023. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition and is a basic indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. No funds will be obligated at award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8604-20-D-8002). General Dynamics Information Technology, Westwood, Massachusetts, has been awarded a $27,686,482 firm-fixed-price modification (P00012) to task order FA8051-18-F-0045 to support the Air Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC) in procurement of professional information technology services for AFCEC's Control Systems Cybersecurity Initiative. This modification provides for the full funding of Option Year One. Work will be performed in Panama City Beach, Florida, as well as various locations worldwide, and is expected to be completed Aug. 19, 2021. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds in the full amount are being obligated at the time of award. This modification brings the total cumulative face value of this contract to $78,113,693. The 772d Enterprise Sourcing Squadron, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Linthicum Heights, Maryland, has been awarded an $18,733,197 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00026) to contract FA8615-17-C-6047 for active electronically scanned array radars of Air Force F-16 aircraft. The contract modification is for definitization of the Radio Frequency Target Generator, additional support equipment and software development to support Phase Two. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, Maryland, and is expected to be completed by April 2023. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $3,510,172; and fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $10,103,436 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $1,027,044,025. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (Awarded June 18, 2020) Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Beavercreek, Ohio, has been awarded a $12,602,959 contract to develop, prototype and demonstrate an integrated sensor suite capability for effective cockpit sensing, including pilot physiology and cockpit environments. The final product will be a stand-alone prototype system ready for transition to platform program offices for acquisition. Work will be performed in Dayton, Ohio, and is expected to be completed Nov. 21, 2023. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and seven offers were received. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,750,000 will be obligated at the time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8650-20-C-6231). ARMY Airborne Systems North America of California Inc., Santa Ana, California (W911QY-20-D-0027); and Mills Manufacturing Corp.,* Asheville, North Carolina (W911QY-20-D-0028), will compete for each order of the $150,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the purchase of MC-6 personnel parachute systems. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 18, 2028. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Gilbane Federal, Concord, California, was awarded a $96,903,333 firm-fixed-price contract for construction of a new 135,392 gross square-foot building. Bids were solicited via the internet with five received. Work will be performed at Fort Gordon, Georgia, with an estimated completion date of June 19, 2022. Fiscal 2018, 2019 and 2020 military construction (Army) funds in the amount of $96,903,333 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia, is the contracting activity (W912HN-20-C-3006). Oshkosh Defense LLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, was awarded a $71,134,382 modification (PZ0009) to contract W56HZV-19-C-0087 for heavy equipment transport system trailer and contractor logistics support. Work will be performed in Kampen, Netherlands; and Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with an estimated completion date of May 23, 2023. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 other procurement (Army) funds in the amount of $71,134,382 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, is the contracting activity. Dawson HDR Services JV LLC,* Huntsville, Alabama (W9128A-20-D-0005); Engineering/Remediation Resources Group Inc.,* Martinez, California (W9128A-20-D-0006); GSI Pacific Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W9128A-20-D-0007); and Na Ali'i Consulting & Sales LLC,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W9128A-20-D-0008), will compete for each order of the $49,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for environmental service activities at various locations within the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Honolulu District's area of responsibility. Bids were solicited via the internet with eight received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 16, 2025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Honolulu, Hawaii, is the contracting activity. Tepa EC,* Colorado Springs, Colorado, was awarded a $46,208,579 firm-fixed-price contract for construction of company operations facilities at Fort Carson. Bids were solicited via the internet with five received. Work will be performed at Fort Carson, Colorado, with an estimated completion date of April 5, 2022. Fiscal 2020 military construction (Army) funds in the amount of $46,208,579 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-20-C-0029). General Electric Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, was awarded a $37,070,579 firm-fixed-price contract for support of the T700 series engine program. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2025. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-20-D-0046). Record Steel And Construction Inc., Boise, Idaho, was awarded a $27,554,000 firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction of an approximately 51,000 square-foot, single-story joint simulation environment facility at Nellis Air Force Base. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work will be performed in Las Vegas, Nevada, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2022. Fiscal 2020 military construction, defense-wide funds in the amount of $27,554,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California, is the contracting activity (W912PL-20-C-0018). Sauer Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, was awarded a $20,768,000 firm-fixed-price contract for an operations support facility. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in Fayetteville, North Carolina, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2022. Fiscal 2020 military construction (Army) funds in the amount of $20,768,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina, is the contracting activity (W912PM-20-C-0016). Stampede Ventures Inc., Nome, Alaska, was awarded a $10,398,844 firm-fixed-price contract to repair multiple systems and areas in Hangar 714 at Dover Air Force Base. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 19, 2022. Fiscal 2020 civil construction funds in the amount of $10,398,844 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (W912BU-20-C-0024). Ophirex Inc.,* Corte Madera, California, was awarded a $9,873,778 hybrid (cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price) contract to support a clinical study to determine the safety and efficacy of Varespladib to control or prevent COVID-19-associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome as an addition to standard of care. Bids were solicited via the internet with 63 received. Work will be performed in Corte Madera, California, with an estimated completion date of June 18, 2023. Fiscal 2020 Defense Health Program funds in the amount of $9,873,778 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, Fort Detrick, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W81XWH-20-C-0066). Mahaffey Tent & Awning Co. Inc.,* Memphis, Tennessee, was awarded a $9,201,291 modification (P00007) to contract W9124E-16-D-0006 for furnishing and maintenance of generators and providing potable water, portable light sets, sleep and dining facilities tents, hygiene units, tables, chairs and hand-wash stations. Bids were solicited via the internet with six received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 20, 2021. The U.S. Army 418th Contracting Support Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas, is the contracting activity. NAVY Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems, Braintree, Massachusetts, is awarded a $45,324,258 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-18-C-6405 for the production of MK54 MOD 0 lightweight torpedo (LWT) array kits. This modification combines purchases for the Navy (18%); the government of Canada (68%); Republic of Korea (8%); Denmark (5%); and Spain (1%), under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. Work will be performed in Braintree, Massachusetts (70%); and Lititz, Pennsylvania (30%). This action is to exercise Phase One of Option Year Two of the MK54 MOD 0 LWT array kits program to supply array nose assembly kits. This option provides MK54 LWT MOD 0 array kits for the Navy and FMS partners, in addition to spares, production support material and related engineering services, hardware support and the maintenance of government-furnished equipment. Work is expected to be complete by March 2023. FMS funding in the amount of $37,374,934; and fiscal 2020 weapons procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,949,324 will be obligated at time of award. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin, Rotary and Mission Systems, Moorestown, New Jersey, is awarded a $25,125,344 cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-13-C-5116 to exercise an option for Aegis Combat System Engineering Agent (CSEA) efforts for the design, development, integration, test and delivery of Advanced Capability Build 20. Work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey. Under this contract, the Aegis CSEA develops, integrates, tests and delivers computer program baseline advanced capability builds (ACBs) and supports technology insertions (TIs). It also includes a replacement or upgrade of combat system computing hardware and associated middleware/firmware. The design development and develops engineering products support ship integration, developmental test and operational test events, develops training and logistics products and provides field technical support for designated Aegis baselines. The systems engineering, development and integration work under this contract begins with ACB 16 and TI 16, and continues with a future ACB/TI through the period of performance of the contract. Work is expected to be complete by December 2020. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds; and 2020 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $25,125,344 will be obligated at time of award. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. American Computer Development Inc.,* Frederick, Maryland (N00164-20-D-JN94); Advance Circuit Technology Inc.,* Rochester, New York (N00164-20-D-JN95); Bionetics Corp.,* Heath, Ohio (N00164-20-D-JN96); ZENTECH Bloomington LLC,* Bloomington, Illinois (N00164-20-D-JN97); Printed Circuits Corp.,* Lilburn, Georgia (N00164-20-D-JN98); Sechan Electronics Inc.,* Lititz, Pennsylvania (N00164-20-D-JN99); Spectrum Advanced Manufacturing Technologies Inc.,* Colorado Springs, Colorado (N00164-20-D-JN00); and Unified Business Technologies Inc.,* Troy, Michigan (N00164-20-D-JN01), are awarded a $14,705,110 five-year, firm-fixed-price, multiple award contract for build-to-print circuit card assemblies for military projects. These contracts combine purchases for the Navy (58%); and sales to the governments of other countries (42%) under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in Frederick, Maryland; Rochester, New York; Heath, Ohio; Bloomington, Illinois; Lilburn, Georgia; Lititz, Pennsylvania; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and Troy, Michigan. These build-to-print circuit card assemblies are used for military projects including, but not limited to, helmet display tracking system, fixed forward firing weapons and interface unit automatic data processor systems that are utilized on the MH-60R and MH-60S helicopters. Work is expected to be complete by June 2025. If all options are exercised, work will continue through June 2030. These contracts include options, which if exercised, will bring the cumulative value of these contracts to $38,418,061. Working capital funding that does not expire in the amount of $24,000 will be obligated at time of award. This contract was competitively procured via the beta.SAM website, and 11 offers were received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Crane, Indiana, is the contracting activity. T&M Painting & Construction Inc.,* Murrieta, California, is awarded $10,000,000 for an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum amount of $10,000,000 for exterior and interior painting at the Naval Base Point Loma, California. All work on this contract will be performed in San Diego, California. The initial task order is being awarded at $254,029 for exterior painting at Building T302 and Building 145, Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Pacific. The work to be performed is for the preparation of paint surfaces and various buildings aboard Naval Base Point Loma facilities and also includes incidental lead paint removal, scrapping and removing old paint on fascia boards, doors, windows and trim, eves, downspouts and rain gutters and power washing of paint surfaces as needed. Work is expected to be complete by September 2020. The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of June 2025. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) (O&M,N) contract funds in the amount of $254,029 are obligated on this award. Funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Future task orders will be primarily funded by O&M,N. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, and three proposals were received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N62473-20-D-0003). Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, Owego, New York, is awarded $7,732,575 firm-fixed-price delivery order N00019-20-F-0406 against basic ordering agreement N00019-19-G-0029. Work will be performed in Owego, New York. This delivery order procures labor and hardware to design, develop and test upgrades to currently fielded operation test program sets required for intermediate level support, to include the audio management computer-lite, smart multi-function display, common avionics multi-function display and the control display unit in support of the H-60 Multi-Mission helicopter. Work is expected to be complete by September 2023. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,732,575 will be obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., Manassas, Virginia, has been awarded a $7,115,128 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors (CRANE) program. Work will be performed in Manassas, Virginia (50%); Tucson, Arizona (26%); St. Louis, Missouri (15%); and Los Angeles, California (9%), with an estimated completion date of June 2021. Fiscal 2020 research and development funds in the amount of $7,109,177 are being obligated at the time of award. This contract is a competitive acquisition in accordance with the original broad agency announcement HR0011-19-S-0072. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HR0011-20-C-0119). *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2226670/source/GovDelivery/