17 mars 2020 | International, Terrestre

Can The Army Convince Congress It’s Learned From FCS?

The reboot of the Bradley replacement reminded many on the Hill of past procurement disasters like the Future Combat System. Can the Army exorcise the specter of FCS?

By

CAPITOL HILL: “This is the Army's third attempt at replacing the Bradley,” the grim-faced chairman of defense appropriations, Rep. Pete Visclosky, warned Army officials last week. “We've been told, time and again, that this time it is different.... but the first large acquisition program that has come out of the Army Futures Command has fallen flat. You do need to convince this committee today that our continued support of modernization will eventually be a good investment.”

At three hearings in the last two weeks, members of the House bombarded Army leaders with questions about the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, the semi-robotic replacement for the Reagan-era M2 Bradley. The Army cancelled its original competition after every vendor either dropped out or failed to meet requirements, then rebooted OMFV on a new, less rushed schedule that began with humbly seeking industry's input on what was actually possible.

“We learned early on this program [that] there was confusion over the requirements,” the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. James McConville, told appropriators. With the new approach of listening assiduously to industry, he said, “we think we can save time up front and get the vehicle we need...and have requirements that we know industry can meet.”

That was met with some skepticism. “That sounds great, general, but I wonder why we didn't start this process, you know, a long time ago,” replied the panel's ranking Republican, Rep. Ken Calvert. “What happened?”

“I think what happened, Congressman, is we have learned,” said McConville, not quite answering the question. “We are learning with industry. We're learning with our acquisition folks who are used to doing it the old way, where we spent [10-14 years] developing requirements [and] a system, and then investing a lot of money in it, and finding out at the end we didn't get what we wanted. So, we are stopping early and we are redefining the way we do the process to encourage innovation.”

So what's the new schedule? That's the question Rep. Paul Mitchell asked, without getting a clear answer, in two different House Armed Services Committee hearings, on March 3rd and March 5th.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/can-the-army-convince-congress-its-learned-from-fcs

Sur le même sujet

  • Four big questions for the Air Force in 2019

    31 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Four big questions for the Air Force in 2019

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — As the Air Force leaves 2018 behind and flies into into a new year, the service may face some big changes to its organization and aircraft inventory. Expect to see a lot of these questions answered with the release of the fiscal year 2020 budget, which officials have said will be released in early February. Neither outgoing Defense Secretary Jim Mattis nor its acting head Patrick Shanahan has confirmed a topline budget for the department — the latest reports peg it at $750 billion, up from the $733 billion the Pentagon originally planned for and the $700 billion that President Donald Trump mandated afterward. However, much of this could be dependent on whether the Air Force sees a funding bump this year. What's going on with that F-15X buy? Rumors have swirled for more than a year about whether the Air Force could buy additional F-15s, but it appears that the service will begin purchasing more of Boeing's air superiority jet. On Dec. 21, Bloomberg reported that the Air Force will request 12 F-15Xs for about $1.2 billion as part of the FY20 budget request. The F-15X will be a new variant of the F-15 that includes a new electronic warfare suite, radar, cockpit and the ability to carry more missiles. Bloomberg reports that the decision to buy the new aircraft stems from top Pentagon leaders who want new F-15s to replace the aging models used by the Air National Guard — and pointedly not the Air Force, which has been resistant to buying new, fourth-generation planes. In September, when asked whether the service was considering the purchase of the F-15X, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said the service needed to use its purchasing power to buy more fifth-generation fighter jets like the F-35. "We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth-generation aircraft,” she said. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth-gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth-gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.” One thing to keep an eye on is how Wilson and her uniformed counterpart, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein, justify the purchase of new F-15s, and how they characterize their own levels of support for the initiative. A lack of enthusiasm could be seen as damning on Capitol Hill. The other big questions: Will the number for FY20 hold if there is more budget fluctuation following Mattis' departure? And what does the Air Force's five-year plan look like? That could provide a hint on just how big this investment ultimately may get. Does the Air Force buy light attack aircraft? The Air Force was supposed to put out a final request for proposals this year for new light attack aircraft. That has officially been pushed back until 2019, leaving two competitors in a state of purgatory. If the service moves forward with a competition, it will come down to Textron's AT-6 and the A-29 Super Tucano made by Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corp. But industry sources are still unsure whether the Air Force will commit to a formal program of record. Another major question is just how big the program will be. If fewer than 100 planes are purchased, those will likely be deployed exclusively by Air Force Special Operations Command for low-intensity combat, Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus, Air Combat Command's director of plans, programs, and requirements, told Air Force Magazine. A larger buy of hundreds of aircraft would allow the Air Force to spread its light attack planes more widely, through the United States, Europe and the Asia-Pacific. How do Air Force space operations change with the addition of a Space Force? The Pentagon's latest draft proposal would funnel the new military branch for space operations under the Department of the Air Force, a decision that would give the Air Force a continued voice on national security space pursuits. The service would be led by a Space Force chief of staff and an undersecretary of the Air Force for the Space Force, who would report to the Air Force secretary. This seemingly gives the service's top civilian a considerable amount of authority over the Space Force. Still yet to be seen is whether that solution will satisfy Congress. Rep. Adam Smith, the incoming head of the House Armed Services Committee, remains skeptical about the need for a separate military branch for space, but other lawmakers may be more bullish about the Space Force's need to remain separate from the Air Force. Another big question is what this means for the military's current space organization. Does Air Force Space Command and the Space and Missile Systems Center transfer over to the Space Force? Do the Navy and Army keep their own portions of the military space enterprise? And who is going to get named as the undersecretary of the Air Force for the Space Force, anyway? Will there be some restructuring of Air Force headquarters at the Pentagon? Earlier this month, Heidi Grant, the outgoing deputy secretary of the Air Force for international affairs, confirmed that the service is considering transferring some of her office's strategy development functions to the Air Staff's office for plans and requirements, also known as the A5. This, she said, was part of a larger reorganization currently being considered by service leadership. These internal decisions reportedly aren't tied to the budget, and Grant said the Air Force could come out with a decision as early as January. However, leaders have said little about what sort of changes have been proposed. Is this just the transfer of some responsibilities from one office to another, or might we see some consolidation or the creation of new offices as a result of the deliberations? https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/27/four-big-questions-for-the-air-force-in-2019/

  • The military wants many systems to share one language

    11 février 2019 | International, C4ISR

    The military wants many systems to share one language

    By: Mark Pomerleau The Army, Navy and Air Force secretaries recently signed a memorandum that would establish common standards of information in future weapon systems, a move that will allow for greater coordination on a future battlefield that will require faster decision making. As the military is shifting its focus to so-called great powers and simultaneously each pursing its own version of multidomain operations — a concept of operating more seamlessly across the five domains of warfare — there is a recognition for the need for closer cooperation. According to an Air Force release Feb. 8, older weapon systems were not developed with common interface standards, which made interoperability more difficult. “This is vital to our success,” said Mark Esper, the secretary of the Army. “After reviewing the capabilities of common standards, we have collectively determined that continued implementation, and further development of modular open systems approaches are necessary to keep our competitive advantage.” In recent years, the services have developed, demonstrated and validated common data standards through a cooperative partnership with industry and academia to allow for a modular open systems approach, the release said. When the services follow the standards, contractors can build interoperable systems. This approach can lead significantly reduce development timelines and shrink costs by as much as 70 percent, the release said. “The ability for our systems and forces to exchange information and communicate effectively gives our war fighters the best capabilities to deliver the fight tonight,” Richard Spencer, the secretary of the Navy, said. “This reform will make us a highly integrated and more lethal fighting force.” With new approaches, such as multidomain operations, Pentagon leaders say it is critical for systems and forces to communicate across domains as well as cyber and land systems. "Victory in future conflict will in part be determined by our ability to rapidly share information across domains and platforms," Heather Wilson, secretary of the Air Force, said. "Sharing information from machine to machine requires common standards." Some in industry are helping the military answer some tough problems. “How do you take all the platforms that are out there and link them together and then be able to create decisions that happen a lot faster or get to decisions that you couldn't have gotten to if you were looking at each of the domains independently,” Rob Smith, vice president of C4ISR & UAS, Rotary and Mission Systems at Lockheed Martin, told reporters in July. While linking systems together may sound easy, Smith said differences in planning cycles, technologies and classifications is challenging. Going forward, the Air Force release said the joint memorandum directs service acquisition executives to publish specific implementation guidance for acquisition programs, continue to identify gaps and develop new standards when needed. Additionally, capability requirements officers must write modular open systems into future requirements documents as to be able to communicate across domains. https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2019/02/08/the-military-wants-many-systems-to-share-one-language

  • US antitrust regulators extend review of Lockheed-Aerojet deal

    22 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    US antitrust regulators extend review of Lockheed-Aerojet deal

    Regulators have extended their probe into Lockheed Martin’s proposed purchase of Aerojet Rocketdyne.

Toutes les nouvelles