18 juillet 2018 | International, Aérospatial

Boeing Gets $3.9 Billion Contract for New Air Force One

By

Capping off a contentious contracting tussle with President Donald Trump, Boeing Co. received a $3.9 billion contract to continue development, modification and testing of two new aircraft to serve as Air Force One, according to two people familiar with the decision.

The planes, Boeing 747-8s, would be delivered by December 2024. That would be Trump's last full year in office if he wins a second term. Congressional committees were informed of the decision on Tuesday.

Trump reached an informal deal in late February with Chicago-based Boeing for the fixed-price contract that a White House spokesman said at the time would save taxpayers $1.4 billion from an earlier projection for buying and outfitting two presidential jets. But public estimates suggest the savings would be far less -- perhaps a few hundred million dollars.

Trump shook the defense industry -- and put all large U.S. companies with government contracts on notice -- when he began criticizing the Air Force One contract more than a month before he took office in January 2017. On Dec. 6, 2016 he wrote on Twitter that “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!”

That surprising statement was followed by talks with Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg. After a visit to Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in January, Muilenburg said, “We're going to get it done for less than that, and we're committed to working together to make sure that happens.”

Announcement of the contract came the same day Trump said in an interview with CBS that the new aircraft will be painted “be red, white and blue, which I think is appropriate,'' instead of its traditional white, blue and light-blue color scheme.

The Air Force said last year that it saved some money when the president reached a preliminary deal with Boeing for two 747 jumbo jets to serve as Air Force One, taking advantage of an unusual limited-time discount on planes once bound for Russia.

Much of the costs for the presidential plane come from pricey and complex modifications required to turn Boeing's iconic hump-backed jets into the flying fortresses that ferry U.S. presidents around the world.

The jets would be outfitted with dual auxiliary power units, rather than the one electrical power system standard for commercial jets, along with a complex communications system, work and rest quarters for the first family, elevators to ease boarding, self-defense capabilities and other features, according to Air Force budget documents.

The Air Force decided in 2015 to award Boeing a sole-source deal to build the Air Force One replacements without competition while insisting that subcontractors be allowed to bid on its specialized equipment. The service determined then that Boeing's aircraft was the only one manufactured in the U.S. “that when fully missionized meets the necessary critically important capabilities” that the president needs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/boeing-said-to-get-3-9-billion-contract-for-new-air-force-one

Sur le même sujet

  • What’s industry role in DoD information warfare efforts?

    20 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

    What’s industry role in DoD information warfare efforts?

    Mark Pomerleau Government leaders are telling industry they need help with integration as the Department of Defense and individual services push toward a unifying approach to information warfare. Information warfare combines several types of capabilities, including cyber, intelligence, electronic warfare, information operations, psychological operations and military deception. On a high-tempo battlefield, military leaders expect to face against a near peer or peer adversary. There, one-off solutions, systems that only provide one function, or those that can't feed information to others won't cut it. Systems must be multi-functional and be able to easily communicate with other equipment and do so across services. “A networked force, that's been our problem for years. Having built a lot of military systems, a lot in C4 and mission command, battle command, we build them and buy them in stovepipes. Then we think of integration and connecting after the fact,” Greg Wenzel, executive vice president at Booz Allen, told C4ISRNET. “My whole view ... networking the force really is probably the best thing to achieve overmatch against our adversaries.” Much of this networking revolves around new concepts DoD is experimenting with to be better prepared to fight in the information environment through multi domain operations or through Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). The former aims to seamlessly integrate the capabilities of each domain of warfare – land, sea, air, space and cyber – at will. It also aims to integrate systems and capabilities across the services under a common framework to rapidly share data. While not an official program, JADC2 is more of a framework for the services to build equipment. “It's more likely a mish-mash of service level agreements, pre-scripted architecting and interoperability mandates that you got to be in keeping with those in order to play in the environment,” Bill Bender, senior vice president of strategic accounts and government relations at Leidos, told C4ISRNET of JADC2. “It's going to take a long journey to get there because, oh by the way, we're a very legacy force and ... a limited amount of technology has the interoperability that is absolutely required for that mission to become a reality.” The “information warfare” nomenclature can fell nebulous and hard to understand for industry officials that provide solutions to the Pentagon. “It's a pretty broad definition. I think it's something that the DoD is struggling with, that's what we're struggling with in industry and it also makes it challenging because no one really buys equipment that way,” Anthony Nigara, director of mission solutions for electronic warfare at L3Harris, said. “No one really buys stuff to an abstract term like information warfare.” Others agreed that the term “information warfare” may be too broad, an issue that's further complicated as each service tackles information warfare in their own way. Most members of industry C4ISRNET talked with on the need to integrate described the key theme of a more networked force as a unifying way to think about the new push to information warfare. “There's a lot of discussions about the Joint All Domain Operations or the multidomain operations. When we look at that and we want to say ‘okay, what is information warfare really mean to everyone?” Steven Allen, director of information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET. “We look at it as how can we get the right information to warfighters in order to fight or how do we get the right information for them to plan? How do we move all that data across whether it's different levels of security or different levels of the warfighting and the data associated with it.” Others expressed the need for contractors to be flexible with how DoD is describing its needs. “Industry has learned to be flexible in responding to messaging calling for new situational awareness capabilities while other established capabilities were being mandated for use in cyber exercises,” Jay Porter, director of programs at Raytheon Intelligence & Space, said. The push to a more information warfare-centric force under the guise of larger concepts to defeat adversaries is pushing the DoD as a whole to fight in a more joint manner. Paul Welch, vice president and division manager for the Air Force and defense agencies portfolio at Leidos, explained that there's a consistent view by the services and the department that they must integrate operations within the broad umbrella of activities called information warfare just as they're integrating warfighting capabilities between the services and across the domains. This goes beyond merely deconflicting activities or cooperation, but must encompass true integration of combat capabilities. Some members of industry described this idea as one part of convergence. “When I talk about convergence, my observation is there is a convergence in terms of of a family of technologies and of a family of challenge problems and how do they come together,” Ravi Ravichandran, chief technology officer of the intelligence and security sector at BAE, told C4ISRNET. Ravichandran provided five specific challenge problems the military may have in which a married suite of technologies can help provide an advantage against adversaries. They include JADC2, overmatch or the notion of assembling technologies in a way better than enemies, joint fires where one service's sensors may be acquiring a target and passing that target off to another service to prosecute it, sensing in the electromagnetic spectrum and strategic mobility to get forces and resources to a particular place at a particular time. Similarly, Welch provided the notional example of an F-35 flying over an area, seeing something on its sensors and sending that information to either an Army unit, a carrier strike group, a Marine Corps unit, or even a coalition partner to seamlessly and rapidly understand the information and act upon it. These sensors must be incorporated into a joint kill chain that can be acted upon, coordinated and closed by any service at any time. Allen noted that when looking at information warfare, his business is examining how to take a variety of information from sensor information to human information to movement information and pull it all together. “There's a lot of discussion on [artificial intelligence] AI and machine learning and it's very, very important, but there's also important aspects of that, which is hey what's the technology to help the AI, what's that data that's going to help them,” he said. “We tend to look very closely with the customers on how do we really shape that in terms of the information you're getting and how much more can you do for the warfighter.” By bringing all these together, ultimately, it's about providing warfighters with the situational awareness, command and control and information they need to make decisions and cause the necessary effects, be it cyber C4ISR, intelligence or electronic warfare, Nigara said. Porter said at Raytheon's Intelligence & Space outfit, they view information warfare as “the unification of offensive and defensive cyber missions, electronic warfare and information operations within the battlespace.” Integrating EW and IO with cyber will allow forces to take advantage of a broader set of data to enable high-confidence decision-making in real time, he added, which is particularly important in the multi-domain information environment to influence or degrade adversary decision making. From a Navy perspective, the ability to share data rapidly across a distributed force within the Navy's distributed maritime operations concept will be critical for ensuring success. “We will certainly have to include the mechanisms with which we share information, data and fuse that data from node to node. When I say node to node, a node may be a ship, a node may be an unmanned vehicle and a node may be a shore based facility,” Kev Hays, director of information warfare programs at Northrop Grumman, who mostly supports the Navy, said regarding areas Northrop is investing. “Linking all those participants into a network ... is critically important. We have quite a bit of technology we're investing in to help communicate point to point and over the horizon and a low probability of intercept and low probability of detection fashion.” Ultimately, the information space is about affecting the adversary's cognitive space, they said. “When it comes to information warfare, it's a lot less tangible ... It's not tank on tank anymore. You're trying to affect people's perception,” James Montgomery, capture strategy lead for information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET. As a result, he said, it is critical to take the time with the customer to truly understand the concepts and capabilities and how they all fit together in order to best support them. “Really spending time with them [the customer] and understanding what it is that they're attempting to get at. It helps us better shape the requirements but it also helps us better understand what is it they're asking for,” he said. “When you're moving forward and attempting to come together with both a software hardware based solution to something, it takes a lot of talking time and a lot of touch time with that customer to understand where their head's at.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/information-warfare/2020/07/19/whats-industry-role-in-dod-information-warfare-efforts

  • Air Force turns to nontraditional contracting for space technology projects

    2 janvier 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Air Force turns to nontraditional contracting for space technology projects

    by Sandra Erwin Capt. Benjamin Leaf, program manager of the Space Enterprise Consortium: “We are changing space acquisitions in multiple ways." WASHINGTON — The Air Force just over a year ago formed a Space Enterprise Consortium to expedite the development and prototyping of satellites, ground systems, space sensors and other technologies that U.S. adversaries are advancing at a rapid pace. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson hailed the SpPEC as a successful business model that cuts red tape considerably compared to traditional defense contracting. The consortium so far has started 34 projects worth about $110 million and has been authorized to fund nearly $400 million in additional projects over the next four years. “The initial ceiling for SpEC was $100 million but was increased to $500 million in order to address the emphasis and demand for other transactions agreements to support prototyping efforts,” Air Force Capt. Benjamin Leaf, the SpEC program manager, told SpaceNews in a recent interview. “We are changing space acquisitions in multiple ways,” Leaf said. The consortium does not follow the arcane defense acquisition regulations and issues solicitations in a simpler format. SpEC requires traditional defense contractors to work with nontraditional vendors, he said. “This allows for teaming and understanding innovative capabilities.” Of the 218 companies that have joined the consortium to date, about 25 percent are established Pentagon contractors and and 75 percent are commercial space vendors and startups that rarely have worked with the government. Large defense contractors are expected to either fund one-third of the cost of a project, or otherwise ensure there is “significant participation from a nontraditional entity,” Leaf said. “Almost all our awards have nontraditional participation” either as prime or subcontractors. “The government is trying to become less prescriptive of engineering needs and focusing more on solving the operational problem within a cost and schedule constraint,” Leaf said. The average timeline from solicitation to award has been roughly 90 to 110 days. To compete for contracts, bidders have to pay a membership fee to join the consortium — organized as a nonprofit venture managed by a private contractor ATI. As the consortium manager, ATI is responsible for registering companies. It puts on webinars and conferences for member companies and government officials to share information. ATI also manages contracts on behalf of the government, and charges a percentage of the cost to cover expenses, but is not allowed to make a profit. Leaf said projects planned for fiscal year 2019 include space situational awareness, navigational user equipment, space weather sensors, software processing and a potential requirement from the U.S. Army. Air Force seeks new pool of vendors The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, which oversees the consortium, wants to increase the use of commercial space technology in military projects, Leaf said. “The gap between the traditional defense vendor pool and the innovative technologies offered by nontraditional vendors is steadily shrinking, with SpEC being a strong avenue in that progress.” When the Pentagon decided that space should be treated as a domain of war, it became apparent that the traditional procurement methods would not fit the bill for many of the military's emerging needs, Leaf said. “It starts with the acquisition process,” he said. “The current process has been slow not only in the contractual manner in which projects are awarded but also in execution, with long time frames to deliver capabilities.” To attract commercial vendors that typically would not seek government work, the SpEC uses cost-sharing agreements known as Other Transactions Authority (OTA) that have for years been common practice at NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Pentagon in April approved the $500 million spending ceiling for SpEC. That money is not like regular DoD funding, Leaf explained. The $500 million is the “total prototype throughput of the agreement” over five years. “We have four years remaining before we have to re-compete the consortium manager contract.” Each prototype project is counted as a “contract modification” in the agreement with ATI. Decisions on what projects to take on are driven by requests from DoD and Air Force leaders. “I have my ear to the ground as far as requirements or mission areas that need specific prototyping efforts,” said Leaf. “Sometimes folks come to me. It's a two-way conversation.” A group of military officials and ATI contractors review the requests. “We study what these programs are trying to do and what we can legally do under SpEC as a prototyping effort,” he explained. “Then we generate a solicitation.” The first round is a request for white papers from interested bidders. Next are more detailed proposals with cost information. Over the past year, the SpEC has awarded prototyping contracts for micro-satellites, missile tracking sensors, hosted payload interface units, ground-control and data processing software for the Space Based Infrared missile warning system, protected tactical satellite communications and cyber secure software. Leaf said upcoming competitions will focus on many of these same areas. New projects will address space situational awareness and a ground component for a low-Earth orbit constellation that DARPA is developing for future military use. Startups pursuing government work In response to government interest in space startups and in using nontraditional contracting, the consulting firm Deloitte recently sponsored a mentoring program known as Space 2.0 Accelerator. Six companies that collectively have received more than $60 million in private capital were selected for a seven-week program that wrapped up in December, run by the tech incubator Dcode. The idea was to teach companies about contracting methods like OTA, and to give government agencies a taste of what's available in the private sector. “We've seen private investment in space technology skyrocket in recent years,” said Meagan Metzger, CEO of Dcode. The six space ventures selected were Infinite Composites Technologies, Kepler Communications, Metamaterial Technologies Inc., RBC Signals, Slingshot Aerospace and tacit.io. The companies met with representatives from the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Nate Ashton, director of Dcode accelerator programs, said many startups struggle to break into the government market. “Space is where cyber was 20 years ago in terms of government awareness of the state of technology,” Ashton said. A lot of companies stay away from defense contracts but eventually realize they need the work. “Government at the end of the day spends more than anyone else on the space business.” https://spacenews.com/air-force-turns-to-nontraditional-contracting-for-space-technology-projects

  • US Army testing communications gear for different fighting styles

    14 août 2023 | International, Terrestre

    US Army testing communications gear for different fighting styles

    The Army is investing in the division as it prepares for potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific, against China, or in Europe, against Russia.

Toutes les nouvelles