10 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Army Study Asks: How Much Modernization Can We Afford?

The Army's drive to modernize by 2035 is too big for traditional five-year spending plans, acquisition chief Bruce Jette said. So he's reviving long-term economic forecasting used in the Cold War.

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on June 09, 2020 at 12:37 PM

WASHINGTON: The Army's acquisition chief says the service is sticking with its 34 top-priority programs – in the face of budget pressure from the pandemic. But most of those programs will only move from prototypes to mass production in the second half of the 2020s; then they stay in service for decades with repeated upgrades. So, assistant secretary Bruce Jette says, the Army needs to exploit new technologies like 3D printing and modular upgrades to reduce long-term costs – but also revive long-term economic forecasting techniques largely neglected since the Cold War.

“At this point, we're remaining on schedule with the ‘31 plus 3,'” Jette said during an Association of the US Army webcast yesterday. (The Army divides the 34 programs this way because 31 of them, from intermediate-range missiles to smart rifles, are managed by Army Futures Command, but three of the most technologically challenging – hypersonic missiles and two types of missile defense lasers – belong to the independent Rapid Capabilities & Critical Technologies Office).

But the service needs to do more planning: “A second thing in the background that we are doing is taking a look at a holistic model, an economic model of the Army.”

“We are taking some steps to provide additional data in case there's a prioritization that does come down the road, due to changes in the budget profiles,” Jette said. “That business requires us to have this long-term full understanding of economics, which is what we're focused on trying to develop over the next year.”

That study will help inform Army leaders if they have to make a hard choice on which of the 34 priority programs to put first – and, while Jette didn't say so aloud, which may be cut back or canceled entirely.

Beyond 2026

The Pentagon normally builds its annual budget two years ahead of time. Congress is now considering the 2021 request, largely drafted in 2019. Those budgets include a less-detailed annex, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that outlines the five years ahead.

Now, some of the Army's new weapons will enter service in that timeframe, in limited numbers, including new hypersonic and intermediate-range missiles in 2023. But many, including some of the most expensive, will take longer. So new armored vehicles won't enter service until 2028, new high-speed aircraft not until 2030. Actually building enough to equip a sizable combat force takes even longer. The Army aims to build a decisive counter to Russian aggression by 2028, but expect a force adequate to counter China only by 2035.

“I have to have a much longer view of the battlespace, the economic battle space,” Jette said. “The objective [is] to lay a foundation upon which we can take a serious look at what the long-term implications of owning a piece of equipment,” he said.

So “I'm working with the G-8 [the Army's deputy chief of staff for resourcing]. In fact, we just had a meeting on this last week to pull out some models that were actually used more in the Cold War, that we sort of let wane [during] Iraq and Afghanistan.... Next week I go up to West Point to have ORSA [Operations Research/Systems Analysis] cell up there that specifically is focused on economics.”

New Tricks

Now, the Army doesn't plan to simply repeat its Cold War past. The Reagan-era “Big Five” – the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley armored vehicles, Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and Patriot missile defense system – have been repeatedly upgraded since their inception. But these platforms are running out of room for more horsepower, armor protection, and firepower, and they were never designed to allow the constant upgrades required to keep pace with modern advances in electronics.

The M1 Abrams, for instance, is literally hard-wired. “There are literally, in a tank, over a couple of tons of cabling, all tremendously expensive and all very, very structured,” said Jette, a former tanker himself. “So if you want to change something ... you have to re-cable large portions of it.”

The Army must account not only for the up-front cost to research, develop, and build the new weapons, Jette emphasized, but also the much larger long-term bill to operate, maintain and upgrade them. “If we don't think about how it's going to be enhance-able, upgradable, and modified for different uses over a period of time,” he said, “we're missing things, because we do keep them for 30, 40 years.

“For industry, if you have a good idea and a new component, how do we get them in a vehicle without having to replace half of the components?” he asked. That requires a new approach called modular open systems architecture that allows you to plug-and-play any new component as long as it meets certain technical standards. “By getting this much more open architecture in place on these vehicles,” he said, “we think that we're going to be able to keep them growing to the future over that 30 to 40 year period.”

The Army is also eager to use digital designs, 3D printing, and other advanced manufacturing techniques so it can print out spare parts as needed, rather than stockpile vast quantities of everything it might need for every system. (Jette just visited the Army's 3-D printing hub at Rock Island Arsenal, he said enthusiastically). But this vision raises complex issues of not only managing the technical data but wrangling out the legal rights to use it. Many companies depend on the long-term revenue from selling spares and upgrades, and they're not

It's a knotty intellectual property issue that Jette is keenly aware of, being a patent-holder and former small businessman himself.

“I do understand ... what type of risk it is. I'll frankly admit that many of the people in the military who fundamentally only been in the military don't understand,” Jette said. “If the risk is totally on you, and it makes no economic sense, I recommend you not answering the RFP.”

If too few companies respond to an official Request For Proposals, Jette said, that provides valuable feedback to the Army that maybe it's doing something wrong – feedback he can use in his own quest to educate the service. “Sometimes,” he said, “challenges to RFPs are a good way for you to help me to make sure that people understand that this is too much risk we're asking of industry.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/army-study-asks-how-much-modernization-can-we-afford

Sur le même sujet

29 avril 2020 | International, Naval

Navy Readies To Buy New Frigates As Industrial Base Wobbles
The Navy will recompete the program after the first 10 ships are under contract, leading to a new award and another bite at the apple for the bidders who lost out the first time around. By PAUL MCLEARY WASHINGTON: The Navy will award the first contract for an ambitious new class of frigates in the coming days, several sources with knowledge of the plan said, speeding up a program that wasn't slated to get underway until later this year. After the first award for ten ships, the Navy will launch a new competition for the next ten, possibly splitting the class and giving other shipbuilders another bite at the apple. Moving forward the buy of the first of what should be 20 frigates serves more than one purpose. It locks in place one of the service's top priorities while also pushing work to the winning shipbuilder months ahead of the original schedule, just as the Pentagon worries about the cratering of global manufacturing supply chains as a result to the COVID-19 pandemic. The country's largest shipbuilders are competing for the $1.2 billion first ship, with the price settling in at a projected $900 to $950 million per ship after that. In the running are Huntington Ingalls Industries, which is thought to be offering a more lethal version of its national security cutter. There's also a joint effort between Navantia and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works with a version of its F-100 design already in use by the Spanish navy. Fincantieri Marinette Marine is offering a version of its FREMM frigate in use by the Italian navy. Finally, Austal is trying with a version of its aluminum trimaran Littoral Combat Ship. Fincantieri and Lockheed also make a version of the LCS, but decided not to submit it to the competition. Hanging over any new start shipbuilding program however is the specter of the long-troubled LCS, a vessel still working to find a role and mission within the fleet. Despite its problems, the Navy has ordered 38 of them but is walking away from the class to pursue the new frigate. Unveiling the fiscal 2021 budget earlier this year, Rear Adm. Randy Crites, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget, acknowledged “we don't want to have a repeat of some of the lessons of LCS where we got going too fast,” on the frigate effort, despite speeding up the initial award. Plans call for the FFG(X) to be a small, multi-mission ship loaded out with the Aegis combat system, 32 vertical launch cells and the new SPY-6 radar system. The ship will be smaller than the Arleigh Burke destroyer, the Navy's current workhorse, but outfitted with more power generation capabilities and advanced electronic warfare systems, along with radar and anti-submarine warfare gear. Navy spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez said in an email that the frigate “will provide increased range, endurance and survivability over previous small surface combatants,” as well as improvements in surface warfare, electromagnetic maneuver warfare and air warfare, “with design flexibility for future growth.” That's a lot of capability to fit in a relatively small package at less than $1 billion per ship. But the Navy's top brass and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have declared the fleet needs to be faster, lighter, more maneuverable and more numerous to meet the challenges of modern Chinese and Russian navies. “It's clear they need fewer large surface combatants and more smaller surface combatants,” a congressional source told me. “But whether the frigate is considered by the Secretary of Defense as being small enough” is an open question. Getting the frigate in place early will provide some stability in an uncertain time for the Navy and its industrial base. The service's long-term plans were thrown into flux in February when Secretary Mark Esper held up the release of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan and the long-awaited Integrated Force Structure Assessment (INFSA), after he found the Navy's draft wanting. He assigned Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist to lead a group through a months-long review of the plans before making them public this summer. In a letter to the House Armed Services Committee, Esper said he wants the force to grow larger than the much-discussed 355 ship fleet Navy leaders have long aspired to, with many of those new ships being smaller than the ones currently at sea, and many others unmanned. “Three months ago, I would have said, ‘oh yeah they're gonna want to build more than 20'” frigates,” the congressional source said. “But now with the intervention of the Secretary of Defense it's unclear. Maybe he's fine with just 20, and he wants them to build a lot more of something that's considerably smaller still.” Two of the shipbuilders competing, Fincantieri in Wisconsin and Austal in Alabama have a lot riding on the contract, as their big-ticket work on LCS runs out in coming years. Huntington's yards are somewhat protected because it is the only shipbuilder in America capable of building aircraft carriers, and has two more Ford-class big decks to build over the next decade, along with large amphibious ships. Lawmakers in Wisconsin, well aware of what's at stake, sent a letter to President Trump earlier this year promoting the Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard as best suited for the work. “We have witnessed what the loss of opportunity does to the Midwest,” the letter said. “When industry departs, so does hope.” Wrapping up the pitch for close to $20 billion worth of work over the 20 ship contract, the senators concluded by telling the president his “leadership and attention to this opportunity is vital.” There is no indication that any political weight is being put on the Navy in awarding the contract, but in an election year, with an industrial base staggering through supply chain meltdowns, the frigate contract is looming large. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/navy-readies-to-buy-new-frigates-as-industrial-base-wobbles/
9 mars 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Contracts for March 8, 2021
Today
1 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

New and old aircraft programs could get axed as top US Air Force general seeks ‘ruthless prioritization’ of capabilities
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — With stagnant budgets on the horizon, the U.S. Air Force is hurtling toward “the most difficult force structure decisions in generations” and must cancel programs and sacrifice some of its existing aircraft inventory to prepare for a potential fight against Russia or China, the service's top general said Monday. A future war with either country could entail combat losses on par with those of a major conflict like World War II, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown wrote in a paper titled “Accelerate Change or Lose,” which outlines his vision as the service's new top uniformed leader. Brown became chief of staff of the Air Force on Aug. 6. Although the Defense Department has focused on war with an advanced, near-peer nation since 2016, Brown raised concerns that the Air Force's sense of urgency is not strong enough and warned of potential mission failure unless the service accelerates the pace of change. A “ruthless prioritization” of the service's requirements is in order, he said. “We must reframe platform-centric debates to focus instead on capabilities to execute the mission relative to our adversaries,” he wrote. “Programs that once held promise, but are no longer affordable or will not deliver needed capabilities on competition-relevant timelines, must be divested or terminated. Cost, schedule, and performance metrics alone are no longer sufficient metrics of acquisition success.” The Air Force must be responsive to the actions of its adversaries, pivoting when necessary to stay ahead and creating technologies that can be cost-effectively operated and maintained, Brown added. “Capabilities must be conceived, developed, and fielded inside competitors' fielding timelines — knowing we will need to adapt and adjust over time. Innovative ideas from our Airmen need viable sustainment pathways. If we are to beat our competitors in conflict, we must also beat them in development and fielding of capability,” he said. It's unclear what existing capabilities could be on the chopping block, but more details on the Air Force's path forward are expected. During a Aug. 31 roundtable, Brown told reporters that the service is working on action orders associated with his strategic vision that will be unveiled at the Air Force Association's conference during the week of Sept. 14. Brown's call for rapid change could pave the way for another bloody budget rollout when the Air Force's plan for fiscal 2022 is revealed next year. During its FY21 budget deliberations, service leaders alluded to “controversial changes” such as fleetwide divestments, but ultimately the Air Force proposed retiring handfuls of older platforms rather than entire aircraft types. Congress has attempted to curtail some of those changes, putting strict limits on the amount of tankers and bombers permitted to be retired each year. Brown acknowledged that if he's to make radical changes to force structure, he will need to have tough conversations with other Air Force and Pentagon leaders, Congress, and industry to determine where risk can be taken. “When we work in various silos, we're all trying to make our particular program or platform as capable as we can be. But we can't afford all of those,” he said. The difficulty is getting “the right set of full programs” and not “a number of broken programs” that “balance the checkbook at the expense of our capability.” Brown's priorities for the Air Force extend beyond changes to existing force structure and modernization plans. Like his predecessor, Gen. Dave Goldfein, Brown stressed the importance of the military's Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept, as well as increased interoperability and data sharing with allies. Brown also hinted that a restructure of the Air Force could be forthcoming, and that the creation of the Space Force provides an opportunity to review the roles and missions of his service. “Sometimes the model we use in the deployed environment is different than the model we use at home,” he said. “You want to train like you're going to fight. From that aspect, we've got to take a look at ourselves.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/08/31/new-and-old-aircraft-programs-could-get-the-ax-as-top-us-air-force-general-calls-for-a-ruthless-prioritization-of-its-capabilities/

Toutes les nouvelles

Army Study Asks: How Much Modernization Can We Afford?

The Army's drive to modernize by 2035 is too big for traditional five-year spending plans, acquisition chief Bruce Jette said. So he's reviving long-term economic forecasting used in the Cold War.

Sur le même sujet

Contracts for March 8, 2021 Today

Contracts for March 8, 2021
Today