29 octobre 2019 | International, Naval

After a leadership shakeup at General Dynamics, a murky future for submarine building

By: David B. Larter

WASHINGTON — Submarine building, the pride of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding efforts over the past decade, is facing a mountain of uncertainty, a point underscored by the replacement of senior members of General Dynamics leadership, compounding delays with construction of the Virginia-class submarine and nagging questions about the quality of the work after a high-profile welding issue threatened to trip up the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub program at the starting line.

Adding to the uncertainty for General Dynamics, which operates the Electric Boat shipyard in Connecticut, are indications that profits from constructing Virginia-class subs may be slipping. And challenges in training new workers in the complex world of building subs as well as concerns that the Columbia program might negatively affect General Dynamics' bottom line are impacting General Dynamics' partner yard Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia, as well as the U.S. Navy.

Furthermore, a contract for the significantly larger Block V Virginia-class submarine, expected to be one of the largest in the Navy's history, has been repeatedly delayed amid disputes over labor rates, sources told Defense News. That contract is more than a year past due, according to Navy budget documents.

In September, General Dynamics pushed out Electric Boat President Jeffrey Geiger. Industry and Navy sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Geiger's replacement was the culmination of mounting frustration on the part of the Navy. That came to a head when quality control issues surfaced with missile tubes in production destined for the Virginia Payload Module, Columbia-class subs and the United Kingdom's replacement ballistic missile sub.

Geiger's ouster came on the heals of General Dynamics replacing long-time executive John Casey as head of the Marine Systems division when he retired earlier this year.

The shakeup, delays and lingering issues put the Navy and the submarine-building enterprise at a crossroads. It's clear that the Navy's efforts to ramp up production of its Virginia-class attack boats ahead of Columbia have encountered myriad issues and delays. But while delays may be acceptable for the Virginia program, the interconnected nature of submarine building means those delays could eek into a program that the Navy has for years insisted cannot be delayed any further: the replacement of its aging Ohio-class ballistic missile subs, part of the nuclear deterrent triad.

The Navy has said Columbia must be ready for its first patrol in 2031 to ensure the nation doesn't fall below a dangerous threshold where retiring Ohio-class submarines leaving the country without an adequate number of boats to execute its deterrent strategy. But to head that off, the Navy may have reduce its expectations of the industrial base's capacity to build submarines, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank and a retired submarine officer.

“The Navy is going to have to reduce its appetite for submarine capacity while it gets the construction process in a better position,” he said. “All of the things we have seen in the past year in the submarine-building enterprise are the results of the ramped-up production levels and the challenges that EB [Electric Boat] faces in hiring more workers up in Connecticut.

“They've been growing capacity, investing in infrastructure; they're trying to hire a bunch of workers and design engineers. [But] there just isn't a large workforce of those kinds of people up there as opposed to in Hampton Roads or the Gulf Coast. So there are a lot of challenges in ramping up production to [increase] Virginia-class production and, in addition, starting Columbia and beginning the Virginia Payload Module-equipped Virginias, which is a 30 percent larger submarine.”

A bridge to Columbia

In March, Defense News reported that all the Virginia-class submarines under construction were between four and seven months behind schedule. Naval Sea Systems Command pointed to the cumulative effect of ramping up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year. In a statement, the service's top acquisition official said the Navy was continuing to confront material, labor and shipyard infrastructure issues.

Labor issues in particular hit the Newport News yard, which told investors in a recent earnings call that profits had slipped by about 23 percent on the Virginia sub building because of delays associated with labor issues.

In the face of the mounting issues, the Navy should be willing to make difficult choices to get back on an even footing, Clark said.

“Are we going to make some tough choices and dial back submarine construction deliberately to make sure we can get Columbia started correctly?” he asked. “And that means maybe we slow down Virginia, maybe we go to one per year for at least a couple of years to catch up.”

Clark said the Navy should continue to fund two submarines per year but should expect that they will take longer to build while General Dynamics and Newport News stabilize their labor and parts issues.

Paring back submarine production is a tough pill to swallow for the Navy, as it's been fighting for years to prevent a shortfall of attack submarines in the coming decade. The Navy expects its inventory of attack boats to drop from 52 to 42 by the late 2020s as Cold War-era Los Angeles-class attack subs retire.

Furthermore, there's the question of whether scaling back production might invite a funding cut, which could make matters worse. The supplier and labor issues, after all, primarily stem from the 1990s when the Navy all but stopped buying submarines, which resulted in a contraction of the number of businesses that built submarine parts and a loss in skilled laborers who knew how to build them.

Less funding would likely have a detrimental effect on sub-building efforts, said Bill Greenwalt, a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer.

“Under our current budget and appropriations process, slowing down — which likely implies cutting program funding — would exacerbate industrial base problems as it already has in the past due to lack of program demand,” Greenwalt said. “Congress and the Navy need to be prepared for industrial base surprises and seriously face the past problem of the underfunding of naval shipbuilding.”

“A flexible schedule and more realistic and flexible funding mechanisms will be needed to meet whatever industrial base challenges ... will inevitably arise,” he added. “In the near term we may even need to look at some of our allies' capabilities to meet shortfalls and help us keep on schedule until we rebuild U.S. capacity.”

Greenwalt's view tracks with that of General Dynamics, according to a source with knowledge of the company's thinking on the difficulties it has faced. The company considers ramping up production on the Virginia-class sub as essential to building a sufficient labor force and supplier capacity so the resources are available to build Columbia class on schedule, the source said.

‘Two-hump camel'

The Navy's top acquisition official, James Geurts, has similarly described the issue. On the possibility of building a third Virginia-class submarine in 2023, Geurts told the House Armed Services Committee's sea power panel in March that it would benefit the Columbia-building effort.

“We can get some of the additional workforce trained up, get some more of the supplier base and get some of the supplier builds out of the way before Columbia gets here,” he said.

Officials everywhere seem to agree that the labor force is the most critical factor when it comes to getting submarine building on track. In an exit interview with Defense News in August, outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said turnover at shipyards was a challenge but also an exciting chance to build a new generation of skilled labor.

“We're asking a lot of the submarine industrial base right now to continue with Virginia, two to three per year including that payload module, and deliver Columbia,” Richardson said. “And the workforce is going through a transformation.

“The people who built and delivered the Virginia program, the Los Angeles program and Seawolf — those folks are retiring. We used to have this two-hump camel in terms of the demographics of the shipyard: You had the Cold Warriors and you had the post-9/11 folks. And that Cold War hump is gone. And I think that although it's going through some friction right now, it's really inculcating, indoctrinating and educating a brand-new workforce.”

Richardson also sounded a note of warning about work quality, saying that the managers overseeing the work for the submarine-building enterprise must be on top of their jobs.

“We've had some welding issues: We've got to be on that,” he said. “[It's] a lot closer oversight as we educate this new team.”

Clarification: The story has been updated to better reflect the arguments surrounding the future of submarine building.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/28/after-a-leadership-shakeup-at-general-dynamics-a-murky-future-for-submarine-building/

Sur le même sujet

  • The US military’s chaff and flare industry is on fragile ground

    14 novembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    The US military’s chaff and flare industry is on fragile ground

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The two companies responsible for producing chaff and flares for U.S. military aircraft could be poised for a major shakeup, and the Pentagon and congressional critics have begun sounding the alarm about this small, vulnerable segment of the defense-industrial base. In an October report to the White House on the health of the defense-industrial base, the Pentagon relayed concerns about the small number of domestic chaff and flare producers, and stated that weakened demand — especially for flares — could leave companies little incentive to make internal investments. Only one producer of chaff exists in the United States: Esterline Defense Technologies, also known as Armtec. Esterline, which also makes flares, is joined by one other domestic flare manufacturer: Kilgore Flares Co., a part of Chemring Countermeasures USA, which itself is a subsidiary of a firm based in the United Kingdom. This already precarious industrial situation may be further rattled by TransDigm Group Inc.'s proposed acquisition of Esterline, two lawmakers said. In an Oct. 29 letter to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Reps. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., and Walter Jones, R-NC, called on the Defense Department to block the deal until its inspector general completed an investigation into TransDigm's business practices. The letter was first reported by The Capitol Forum. “TransDigm has repeatedly purchased companies that are the sole providers of Department of Defense items and engaged in price gouging,” Speier and Jones wrote. “The abuses have been sufficiently common and severe enough to warrant a DoD inspector general investigation. Unsurprisingly, Esterline is the sole DoD chaff provider and one of two flare providers. The alarm bells should be ringing.” The industrial base issues, however, extend far beyond TransDigm's proposed acquisition. A small but critical market Chaff and flare are countermeasures used by military planes and helicopters to help evade a missile attack by an enemy aircraft. For the non-stealthy fourth-generation assets that make up the bulk of the services' inventory, these systems are pivotal to that aircraft's defense. Chaff — which comprises “millions of tiny aluminum or zinc-coated fibers” — is stored onboard an aircraft in tubes and ejected behind the plane to confuse radar-guided missiles, the Pentagon's defense-industrial base report stated. Meanwhile, flares distract heat-seeking, infrared-guided missiles “by ejecting magnesium pellets from tubes to ignite in the wake behind an aircraft,” the report states. Those pellets are so hot — more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit — that the temperature exceeds that of the aircraft's engine or exhaust, tricking an infrared-guided missile about the path of the aircraft. According to the industrial base report, “defense unique requirements and decreasing DoD demand drove out other suppliers, leaving a single qualified source for chaff.” Peter Navarro, the White House's director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, called attention to the fragile chaff supply base during a Nov. 9 speech at the Center of Strategic and International Studies, calling it a “single point of failure.” Meanwhile, the outlook for flare companies seems even more grim, with the report noting a number of explosions that had plagued both Esterline and Kilgore over the past several years, often leading to factorywide shutdowns that delayed deliveries of product to the Defense Department. “Both companies have experienced quality and delivery problems since the accidents,” the report stated. “As program offices look to improve quality and cost, they are beginning to look offshore at more modern facilities, where there are fewer quality and safety concerns.” One of the biggest problems facing chaff and flare manufacturers is the fluctuating demand signal from the Defense Department — their only customer for the product — based on the military's operational needs, the Association of Old Crows, a professional organization centered on electronic warfare and other countermeasures, said in a statement to Defense News. “Spending on countermeasures flares in the U.S. and among several NATO allies surged during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and then dropped sharply as these conflicts reduced their operations tempo or wound down,” the organization stated. “The industrial base is small, yet it must be able to meet big fluctuations in customer demand. This creates a tremendous challenge that could be managed more successfully with better coordination among U.S. military customers or even between NATO partners." A history of safety issues and scandal Though chaff and flare companies usually fly under the radar of the defense trade press, when they do appear in the media, it's usually related to life-threatening accidents at manufacturing facilities or the like. In May 2016, Esterline was forced to temporarily halt operations at its plant in East Camden, Arkansas, after an explosion injured two employees. Local newspaper El Dorado News Times reported that one of the victims suffered “a blast to the face,” which left burns on the hands, chest and face, and took shrapnel to the elbow, according to a Facebook post by the victim's relative. Kilgore Flares also sustained several high-profile accidents in recent years, most notably a 2014 explosion that killed one employee at its factory in Toone, Tennessee. The same plant was the site of a 2016 explosion where no one was injured, according to WBBJ 7 Eyewitness News. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation of the 2014 incident, the worker had been removing residual flare materials that ignited, prompting the explosion. “The investigation identified noncompliance in process safety information, process hazard analysis and ... operating procedures. The employee suffered severe burns on multiple areas of his body and was transported to a hospital, where he received medical treatment and burn therapy, but died from his injuries,” the administration had said. Kilgore also came under the scrutiny of the U.S. Justice Department in 2016 for selling the Army flares made with magnesium that a supplier — ESM Group Inc. — illegally imported from China. The company was fined $8 million for violating a requirement that all magnesium used to make flares be sourced from American or Canadian suppliers, reported the Memphis-based CBS affiliate WREG. Kilgore and Esterline did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Pat Kumashiro, former head of the maintenance division for the Air Force's Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection Directorate and currently director of the Air Force market at LMI, said China is paying attention to weaknesses in the American defense-industrial base. “They are pretty savvy as it relates to understanding global supply chains, and when they have opportunities to buy mineral rights — and you see them doing a lot of work and being very aggressive in Africa — they are doing it for a reason,” he said. If an adversary such as Russia or China identifies that there are a limited number of sources for chaff and flare, they can find ways to impact U.S. suppliers — which in turn degrades the mission capability of fourth-generation planes, Kumashiro said. “Operational pilots are not going to go into harm's way without an operational chaff [and] flare system,” he said. The evolving landscape for chaff and flare Big changes appear to be coming down the pipeline for both Esterline and Kilgore Flares. For the former, the question is whether the Defense Department allows TransDigm to acquire Esterline. "Our general goal in this area is to promote competition among contractors but also ensure that DoD is paying fair prices for the best, most usable products that it can get,” a staff member of Rep. Speier told Defense News. But Speier and his colleague Jones believe TransDigm could artificially inflate prices by claiming there is a commercial market for those products, which would limit the ability of Defense Department procurement officers to have full access to pricing data, the staffer said. Should the Defense Department decide to allow the TransDigm deal to go forward, Speier may push to add language to next year's defense authorization bill that would pose additional limitations on what products are deemed “commercial,” or it could call on the Pentagon to study the level of competition throughout the industrial base, the staffer said. For Kilgore Flares, the changes appear to be more conventionally positive. This May, Chemring Group said it would spend $40 million to expand Kilgore's production facility in Toone and grow the plant's employment numbers from about 280 to 375 people. From 2018-2022, the company plans to improve existing facilities, construct new buildings and buy modern equipment, including a new flare extruder and assembly facility, the company said in a news release. In total, those expenditures will triple the plant's production capacity. Kilgore's investment may indicate that chaff and flare manufacturers see some relief on the horizon. Industry officials who spoke to Defense News about this sector said they were hopeful the Defense Department's industrial base report could indicate a heightened level of Pentagon interest. The department already has certain levers it can pull to address problems in its supply base. One such effort, called the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program, involves targeted investments to sustain certain manufacturers who produce a critical capability. Another resource is the Defense Production Act Title III program, which offers grants, purchase commitments, loans or loan guarantees to portions of the industrial base that are weakening. The Defense Department called for an expansion of those programs in recommendations to the White House submitted as part of the industrial base report. A classified annex also includes detailed fixes for certain critical industries. So far, however, it's unclear what assistance could be coming down the pipeline for the chaff and flare industry. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/11/13/the-militarys-chaff-and-flare-industry-is-on-fragile-ground

  • Estonia has signed a contract with Israel Aerospace Industries to acquire long-range loitering munitions

    3 mai 2023 | International, Aérospatial

    Estonia has signed a contract with Israel Aerospace Industries to acquire long-range loitering munitions

    The procurement of long-range loitering munitions aims to strengthen Estonia's defenCe capability by significantly increasing its indirect fire capabilities.

  • US, UK Will Have ‘Avenue' to Share Best Practices for Sixth-Gen Fighter Development - Air Force Magazine

    28 juillet 2022 | International, Aérospatial

    US, UK Will Have ‘Avenue' to Share Best Practices for Sixth-Gen Fighter Development - Air Force Magazine

    As the US and Great Britain pursue different sixth-gen fighters, they'll still find ways to collaborate, the US air attaché in London said.

Toutes les nouvelles