Big moves ahead on light tank, Bradley replacement and robot vehicles

Sur le même sujet

• 

  20 juin 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Pentagon, Lockheed Martin Failed to Ensure Proper Parts for F-35

  CHARLES S. CLARK A major contractor and the Pentagon's top management office came in for criticism from an inspector general for cutting corners in assuring that the massive joint-service F-35 stealth fighter is equipped with ready-for-issue parts. In a report dated June 13, the Defense Department watchdog found that parts for the department's largest acquisition—with an estimated $406 billion price tag and sales planned to foreign allies—were not being received according to the contracts and performance incentives. The parts contracted for delivery by Lockheed Martin Corp. include wheel, seat, and window assemblies, said the audit addressed to the Defense secretary for acquisition, the Air Force secretary, the Air Force inspector general and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The federal contracting offices and the corporate teams working on the plane are supposed to ensure the sustaining parts are delivered “ready for aircraft maintenance personnel to install on the aircraft,” as well as have an Electronic Equipment Logbook assigned that spells out each part's history and remaining life. Too often, however, the parts arrived not ready in accordance with contracts and incentive fees on the sustainment contracts because of “inflated and unverified F‑35A aircraft availability hours. This occurred because the [Joint Program Office] did not conduct adequate oversight of contractor performance related to receiving F‑35 spare parts and aircraft availability hours,” the report said, calling the inflation of hours unintentional. As a result, the department received non-ready spare parts and spent up to $303 million in labor costs since 2015, “and it will continue to pay up to $55 million annually” for such parts until a fix is made. In addition, the Defense Department has “potentially overpaid” $10.6 million in performance incentive fees by not independently collecting and verifying aircraft availability hours. “The lack of available [ready-for-issue] spare parts could result in the F‑35 fleet being unable to perform required operational and training missions,” the report warned. The Joint Program Office was aware of the problem, auditors found during their review from June 2018 to April 2019, but did not resolve the issue or require the services to better track the non-compliant parts. Interviews with the Joint Program Office staff in Arlington, Va.; the DCMA administrative office in Lockheed Martin's facility in Fort Worth, Texas; and Lockheed staff at three sites found, for example, that of 74 spare parts delivered to Hill Air Force Base in Utah from Sept. 17-30, 2018, 59 spare parts (80 percent) were non-ready for issue. Of the 263 spare parts delivered to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona in June 2018, 213 spare parts (81 percent) were non‑ready. And of 132 spare parts delivered to the Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, S.C., in September 2017, 58 spare parts (44 percent) were non‑ready. The IG recommended that the F-35 program executive officer improve oversight by coordinating with DCMA to pursue compensation from the contractor for the costs of mishandling the supply of spare parts since 2015. It also recommended that he direct the contracting officer to add clarifying language to future sustainment contracts, and task the lead contracting office with updating its Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. Navy Vice Adm. Mathias Winter, the program executive, agreed, stating that there is value added in tracking and using contractor performance data. https://www.govexec.com/defense/2019/06/pentagon-lockheed-martin-failed-ensure-proper-parts-f-35/157822/

• 

  3 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  SASC chairman: We must build the national security innovation base our defense strategy requires

  By: Sen. Jim Inhofe Since World War II, the American people have believed our military has had the best of everything, but the technological superiority that kept us 20 years ahead of our competitors has rapidly diminished. In some cases, we're already behind. By 2030, unless we pursue “urgent change at significant scale,” as former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis put it, it's likely the U.S. will face an enemy with superior weapons, superior equipment and superior capabilities. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our strategic competition with China. China used to just steal our technology. Now, through heavy investment, they are improving it. The result? China is outpacing the U.S. in key areas like hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies — not to mention conventional capabilities. China isn't the only one. Technological development is accelerating across the globe, expanding to more actors and changing the very nature of war. We can't afford to let our advantage erode further. It is up to the Department of Defense and Congress to make sure that the defense-industrial base becomes, as the National Defense Strategy demands, an “unmatched 21st century National Security Innovation Base.” If we want to “sustain security and solvency,” we need to consider wholesale change to industry culture and its interface with the Department of Defense, shed outdated management processes, and reimagine a resilient supply chain that mitigates 21st century risks. This begins with software, which is foundational to military capability. The DoD and its traditional hardware-dominant industry partners have been behind on software in almost every way — talent, tools, development and delivery processes. Software innovation has failed in countless DoD programs, including the Ford-class carrier, the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System and the GPS next-generation operational control system. Instead of taking the Pentagon for granted as an endless source of cash flow, partners must refocus their attention on delivering secure capability that actually works. Next, the Department of Defense needs to continue to expand capacity — prioritizing speed of delivery and adapting its systems to maximize value and output. For too long we have been slow to expand our stockpiles of fifth-generation weapons required to fight peer adversaries. The second production line for JASSM-ER cruise missiles is a good start toward building the capacity needed to retain advantages that will make any enemy think twice before attacking. We must do the same for other fifth-generation weapons, including air-to-air missiles. Shipbuilding, including aircraft carriers, surface ships, submarines and our logistics fleet, is another area where our capacity is severely limited. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, which recently surpassed ours in size, is on track to reach 400 ships in 2025 and is nearly self-sufficient for all components. Size of the fleet isn't a sole consideration. We've focused on ensuring the capability of our fleet remains unmatched and bolstering suppliers of critical components, but we must also improve the construction performance of lead ships in new classes to maintain and build upon our capability advantage. The last thing we want is a fair fight. Innovation is best done at the subsystem level through a rigorous engineering-based process centered on building knowledge through full-scale prototypes, which can then inform ship design. We are eager to work with the Navy to identify and fund more of these prototypes, which will serve as the building blocks of the future fleet. We also must accelerate innovation. Recent defense authorization legislation encourages the DoD to streamline acquisition, take a business-minded approach to contracting, and tap into nontraditional suppliers and public-private partnerships. This must continue. Dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one. The DoD has looked to Silicon Valley, but we are competing with Chinese influence there as well, and the Pentagon has often proven an impossible customer due to its antiquated bureaucracy. Any technological improvements will be meaningless if vulnerable to being infiltrated or stolen. Recent legislation continues support for the DoD as it assesses and mitigates risks to its supply chains posed by adversaries. Both the government and contractors need to cooperate on and use modern verification tools to identify trusted suppliers and manufacturers, as well as fix vulnerabilities. To make these tools useful, the DoD must first establish a working digital model of its suppliers. Lastly, while we must continue to invest in the domestic, organic industrial base, it's important to remember that we can't take on China and Russia alone — which is why the National Defense Strategy emphasizes our network of allies and partners. We must remove unnecessary barriers to industrial cooperation that degrade our collective competitive edge. We do not have to make a false choice between investing domestically and in our allies — we can do both. Under our National Technology and Industrial Base partnership with Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, we can develop a more diverse, resilient industrial base, secure our supply chains, and become a “five eyes for defense procurement.” It's in our best interest to ensure our allies can leverage our technological advantages and we can leverage theirs. Without a strong national security innovation base, the Pentagon cannot implement the National Defense Strategy. Congress' job is to put the appropriate, tailored policy in place and provide sufficient, predictable resources to help the industrial base meet these challenges. Together, we can harness the power of American innovation to ensure that we are able to win the wars of the future. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/sasc-chairman-we-must-build-the-national-security-innovation-base-our-defense-strategy-requires/

• 

  14 juin 2019 | International, Naval

  UK seeks new technologies for future Royal Navy fleet

  By Hemanth Kumar and Talal Husseini The UK Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) is set to launch a new competition to seek intelligent systems and technology solutions to develop a comprehensive future Royal Navy fleet. Known as ‘Intelligent Ship – The Next Generation', the competition will be officially launched in London on 19 June. Through the competition, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) is looking for proposals for novel and innovative projects to facilitate the wider use of intelligent systems within future warships. The MOD said in the competition document: “This aim is based on a future vision where elements of automation, autonomy, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) are closely integrated and teamed with human decision makers. “It is expected that this will ensure timely, more informed and trusted decision-making and planning, within complex, cluttered, contested and congested operating and data environments.” DASA will offer £1m in funding for innovative proposals under the first phase of the future Royal Navy fleet competition. An additional £3m will be made available to fund subsequent phases. The adoption of advanced technologies is seen as a pivotal move in the efforts to reduce decision times in order to meet future threat capabilities. Interested companies will have to showcase through their proposals how they would improve automation, autonomous functions, and AI-enabled decision aides. The scope also includes demonstrating how the proposals could improve speed and/or quality of decision-making and mission planning in a future naval operating environment. The MOD clarified that it does not want proposals that do not “offer significant benefit to defence and security capability”, or “offer no real long-term prospect of integration into defence and security capabilities”, or “offer no real prospect of out-competing existing technological solutions”. The MOD went on to say: “It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance current or future capability. “How long this takes will be dependent on the nature and starting point of the innovation. Early identification and appropriate engagement with end-users during the competition and subsequent phases are essential.” Parties will have time until 23 July 2019 to pitch their ideas for the competition. https://www.naval-technology.com/news/uk-future-royal-navy-fleet/