1 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial
By: Valerie Insinna
WASHINGTON — Boeing is the biggest aircraft manufacturer in the world, but the losses of the joint strike fighter program and Air Force's long range strike bomber still weigh heavily on the company's defense unit, and had prompted some in industry to wonder if the company's days of making cutting edge combat aircraft were numbered.
Conventional wisdom held that Boeing needed to win either the Navy's unmanned tanker drone or the Air Force's next-generation trainer aircraft contract to keep its St. Louis, Mo.-based facility building tactical aircraft into the 2030s. a contract for the Air Force's Huey replacement helicopter was seen as out of reach as the service had formerly expressed a preference for sole-sourcing Black Hawks.
But in a matter of weeks, Boeing racked up all three contracts, shocking the defense establishment.
First came the MQ-25 Stingray award for the Navy's unmanned tanker drone on Aug. 30. An initial $805 million contract covers the design, development, fabrication, test and delivery of four Stingray drones, but Navy acquisition boss James Geurts said the entire program could be worth up to $13 billion for 72 aircraft.
“It is a big win on a high-visibility competition/program and gives Boeing a franchise unmanned program,” wrote Roman Schweizer of Cowen Washington Research Group on Sept. 4.
Boeing defeated Lockheed Martin and General Atomics to win the program — and that victory allows Boeing to cement its own status as the Navy's premier manufacturer of fixed-wing aircraft.
“A Lockheed Martin win would have cemented its position as the builder of ‘next-gen' naval aviation platforms while Boeing would have been relegated to manufacturing fleet workhorses,” Schweizer said in his assessment of the award. “General Atomics would have a been a one-off, but we thought they would been a favorite for a low-cost, low-risk design.”
Then on Monday, Boeing won another big competition — this time worth up to $2.38 billion — for the Air Force's UH-1N replacement helicopter. Boeing and Leonardo were immediately obligated $375 million for the initial four MH-139 helicopters, which will be built at Leonardo's commercial AW-139 production plant in Philadelphia.
It was huge news for Leonardo, a large Italian defense contractor that had been attempting to break into the U.S. market with a major program for about a decade.
But for Boeing, it was still a relatively small aircraft procurement program, with Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, writing that there were probably few opportunities for Boeing-Leonardo to sell the MH-139 to other users in the U.S. military.
However, Boeing on Thursday won the major opportunity it had been seeking: the Air Force's T-X program. Boeing's clean sheet design beat out Lockheed and Leonardo to win a contract worth up to $9.2 billion.
It's likely the actual program will be worth considerably less — Boeing would be obligated a total of $9.2 billion over time if the Air Force decides to execute all options on the contract for 475 training jets, and the services' program of record sits at 350 jets.
But its importance to Boeing extends past the award's total contract value.
Winning T-X was “possibly critical” for Boeing's St. Louis plant and for its defense business to remain a competitive player in tactical aircraft design, said Callan.
“The MQ-25 win helps sustain production at that facility, which now builds F/A-18s and F-15s,” he wrote after the Sept. 27 announcement. “However, the F/A-18 and F-15 lines may end by the mid-2020s. T-X enables Boeing to keep that facility humming and therefore in the hunt for Penetrating Counter Air and other new military aircraft programs.”
Analysts like Callan and Schweizer had speculated that Boeing would bid very aggressively to try to win the contract, but the question was whether the company could possibly offer a new purpose-built design at a significantly lower price point than competitors Lockheed Martin and Leonardo, which both proposed aircraft designs already in production and use by foreign militaries.
It appears Boeing may have been able to do just that. Richard Aboulafia told Defense News in 2017 that the Lockheed and Leonardo trainers came with a price tag of about $25 million, although both companies were expected to bid lower than that to be competitive.
Meanwhile, Jim McAleese of McAleese & Associates pegged the unit cost of Boeing's T-X at an “eye-watering” $19 million, far below the Air Force's $45 million per plane expectation.
That low price “establishes an extremely high burden for disappointed offerors of Lockheed or Leonardo” to launch a successful protest with the Government Accountability Office, he stated in a Sept. 28 email, although Lockheed and Leonardo could potentially argue that the Air Force's cost and schedule risk assessments are too optimistic, given that Boeing offered a new airframe.
Callan also pointed out that the MQ-25 and T-X wins could be advantageous to Boeing's commercial business. In the past, the defense sector has developed new materials that have later been adapted for use by the airline industry. With Boeing acquiring autonomy-focused businesses like Liquid Robotics and Aurora while investing in startups through its HorizonX organization, it is possible advances in military unmanned tech could give way to autonomous commercial cargo planes or other future concepts.
19 juin 2018 | International, Aérospatial
Michael Bruno An industry consortium aiming to standardize on-orbit satellite servicing technologies, including many rivals for the burgeoning space market, has figured out how to work together, according to an update June ... http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/darpa-led-satellite-servicing-industry-consortium-forms
11 janvier 2024 | International, Naval
This contract solidifies DRS’s position through shipset 12 for the Columbia-class program.
27 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR
Mark Pomerleau WASHINGTON — The COVID-19 pandemic is evidence that Russia and China have accelerated adoption of their age-old influence and disinformation tactics to the modern era, national security experts and military leaders said. Those countries are leveraging U.S. laws, social media platforms and divisions within society to their larger strategic advantage and as a way to weaken the United States. “This pandemic crisis has made it very, very clear that Russia, China and others intend to strategically use cyber-enable information operations against the U.S.,” Lt. Gen. Mary O'Brien, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and cyber effects operations, said during a Joint Service Academy Cybersecurity Conference webinar June 11. “They're injecting disinformation, which is not a new concept in itself, but now by incorporating cyber means, they're reaching millions of people to exacerbate existing tensions within the U.S. and between us, our allies and partners.” She said these efforts include spreading conspiracy theories and confusing messages about the virus such as its origins and risks. Such tactics are here to stay. “Our adversaries have made it very clear that this aspect of strategic competition will be enduring,” O'Brien added. These tactics, which include waging influence campaigns below the threshold of armed conflict, have forced the military, and U.S. government more broadly, to rethink its strategies and views toward conflict. Traditionally, the United States government has taken a binary view of war and peace, while adversaries such as Russia in particular have viewed conflict on a perpetual continuum. “In many ways, we have trained ourselves as a service at every Red Flag we've gone to that conflict begins when two fighters engage or we find a target on the battlespace. So we've really trained ourselves that conflict begins at that moment,” Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh, commander of 16th Air Force, the service's first information warfare command, said at a July 15 Mitchell Institute webcast. Red Flag is the Air Force's premier tactical training event. “Was the first element really when we got into conflict in the information environment ... the first day that one of our companies was hacked that the intellectual property theft of one of our weapon systems stole?” he said. “Was that really when conflict began? Was it the day that Russian hackers hacked into the DNC? Was that really the day that conflict began for our nation and how we should be thinking about it when the adversaries went to another level of using some level of malign activity that is outside of things that we would consider norms.” As such, the military is looking at ways to expose this activity abroad when it can. “Sixteenth Air Force units are focused on developing tactics, techniques and procedures and they're looking to identify, expose and when directed, countering the threat from the state sponsored disinformation campaigns,” O'Brien said. “This is continuing, I think we'll see it again as we address the racial discrimination.” Adversaries have exploited U.S. laws and principles, such as the freedom of speech with online platforms, which makes outright banning accounts difficult. They've also targeted existing divisions within society such as protests over police tactics and racial equality. “[Adversaries] also are in a position where they can take advantage of a lot of the disinformation/misinformation that's created right here at home in the United States by actual Americans who understand the language in a way Moscow couldn't at a native level,” Cindy Otis, vice president of analysis at Alethea Group, a start-up that counters disinformation and social media manipulation. told C4ISRNET. Experts explained that adversaries in many cases don't have to create content, although many choose to. “At the end of the day they're really just amplifying our existing social divisions. We suspect, especially lately, that they've really done enough amplification that they're just kind of allowing things to snowball now ...There's enough existing division that it really only requires tiny nudges at this point to amplify,” Maj. Jessica Dawson, research lead for information warfare and an assistant professor at the Army Cyber Institute, told C4ISRNET. One way they do this is called memetic warfare, which involves sharing memes on various social media platforms to stoke a particular reaction from various groups. “When we think about memetic warfare, what's really happening is we're taking these sort of deep seeded emotional stories and we're collapsing them down into a picture, usually it's something that has a very, very quick emotional punch,” she said. “They're collapsing these narratives down into images that are often not attributed, that's one of the things about memes is they really aren't, someone usually isn't signing them, going ‘I'm the artist.' There [are] these really emotional punches that are shared very, very quickly, they're self replicating in a lot of ways because you see it, you react and then you immediately pass it on.” While many experts noted that these tactics are nothing new, the difference is the internet. “The major change throughout history is today they're able to spread and amplify and reach people where they are all over the world in a way that was never possible before,” Otis, who previously was a CIA analyst, said. Previously, nations such as the Soviet Union had to prop up media outlets and place stories in newspapers around the world hoping they'd be picked up in English language outlets. Now, they just have to tweet. In some cases, they are overt social media channels and actors might not even hide their origin, but other more covert cases, states might use certain influencers or cut outs to do their bidding. What's the point? The goal of these operations varies slightly, but experts said they serve the ultimate purpose of put down the United States compared to their own nations. “For Russia it all goes back to the desire to undermine United States' global credibility but also show their own population ‘hey, you know that democracy you want, it's actually not a great thing ... look how it's turning out for the United States,‘” Otis said. She added that Russia tries to undermine the credibility of the United States on issues such as human rights, something the United States is active in promoting on the world stage, by highlighting social divisions such as potential police brutality and racial injustice. Dawson noted this can also distract from what Russia is doing abroad. Russia also wants to discourage citizens from voting, Otis said by making large swaths of the population feel disenfranchised. Often times, these actors will play both sides of an issue to maximize reach and discord. When it comes to China, Dawson noted that they are trying to appear more benevolent on the world stage to present itself as a world power, which is much harder. They are also good at making information disappear online, she said, citing information on the Tiananmen Square massacre. Otis pointed to Chinese benevolent efforts such as providing medical aid to nations such as Italy during the ongoing pandemic. Combating these efforts, including those focused internally at domestic populations and undermining government, can be difficult given the existing divisions within society and the broad speech freedoms guaranteed. Otis explained that the government can sometimes be mired in its own bureaucratic processes, noting it can be its own worst enemy. She provided the example of Taliban forces in Afghanistan publishing in their media channels that the United States and NATO forces bombed a school killing scores of children. Those stories would go viral in their circles and sometimes make their way to mainstream outlets. When questioned about those claims by reporters, U.S. officials would explain they have to conduct an investigation, which could take months. By the time the investigation is concluded and the claim is found to hold no truth, the damage is already done and the Taliban have successfully recruited against it. Dawson noted that one way to begin combating disinformation is building trust from the local to the national level while also addressing the underlying domestic problems adversaries are exploiting from abroad. https://www.c4isrnet.com/smr/information-warfare/2020/07/23/memes-the-pandemic-and-the-new-tactics-of-information-warfare/