18 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial

CEO of Boeing’s defense wing talks stumbling blocks, from KC-46 to COVID

WASHINGTON — When Boeing Defense, Space and Security CEO Leanne Caret dials into our hourlong interview on Aug. 4, she comes prepared with 15 minutes worth of opening statements that include thoughts ranging from the company's performance during the coronavirus pandemic to the state of the KC-46 tanker program.

She knows she has a lot to cover, and a lot to answer for.

Caret stepped into the top Boeing defense job in 2016, after the American company lost a lucrative contract for the U.S. Air Force's next-generation bomber. Questions about Boeing's future as a producer of fighter jets — and the prominence of its defense business — lingered as the end of the F-15 and F/A-18 production lines loomed in the near future.

Now the tables have turned. With COVID-19 devastating the travel industry and eradicating near-term sales opportunities for commercial airliners, Boeing's defense sector finds itself as the company's model pupil.

“One of the questions that I get a lot is, how has that changed the expectations for me and for our defense and space business?” Caret told Defense News. “And I wanted to just anticipate the question and share that, you know, as I see it, the company's expectations of our business are the same as always. We need to perform consistently, and we need to perform well. And while our progress may be viewed through a different lens for a period of time, the expectations of how we do our job and what we deliver haven't really changed.”

Under Caret's leadership, Boeing has logged a number of major wins, including contracts for the T-7A trainer jet and the Grey Wolf helicopter for the Air Force, as well as the Navy's MQ-25 drone. New orders for a block upgrade of the Super Hornet aircraft resuscitated that production line, and in July the company got its first order for the Air Force's F-15EX jet.

“I mean, how many people a few years ago would have placed a bet that we'd be building new F-15s? I say, few to none,” she said.

But amid this progress, the company has met stumbling blocks. Most prominently, the KC-46 has been hampered by a list of technical issues, including foreign object debris found in the jets and a dispute with the Air Force over the camera system that allows the boom operator to refuel other aircraft. A deal on a fix for the latter problem was agreed to in April after more than a year of negotiations.

“I think we've turned the corner. I really do,” Caret said. “What I want you to know from me is I want every KC-46 delivered to be perfect. We're not there yet. But we're aligned with the Air Force, and our road map is sound.”

This interview with Caret was edited for length and clarity.

The COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, and there could be a second wave approaching. With that in mind, what is the health of Boeing's defense business? Where are you seeing challenges?

It's not unique to Boeing, but our workforce — think about this — they have masks on, safety glasses, bump caps, vests, gloves, 6-feet proximity. This environment that they're working in, it's just hard. We are still right in the middle of the pandemic. You'll see states that have different protocols. From a Boeing Company position, our goal is to make certain that our employees are safest at work.

Click here to see the Defense News Top 100 list.

One of our biggest lessons learned is the quick benefit you can have from minimizing contact and quarantining. So when a case is identified, we do an entire trace of where the individual has been so that we can quarantine those who are potentially at risk, and then also make certain that they have the ability to go get the testing.

Every employee, we've made sure they have thermometers and masks as we continue to bring folks back in. We're making certain that we have lots of really great cleaning details, and folks just focused on easing the anxiousness of our teams because day in day out this is really hard. As you talk about the fall and the worry about the flu — we don't have a vaccine yet for COVID, and then you are dealing with the compounding effects of schools not being in session. We have not had a respite from this.

How is the health of your second-tier suppliers and below that? Are you concerned there could be delays in getting parts, components or subsystems that Boeing needs as we head into the fall?

We've already seen delays. Think about what we went through in both Mexico and India. We have suppliers in both of those countries. And again, this is not unique to Boeing. As they were going through their shutdowns and their quarantines, it impacted, many times, their production rates. And so that is where we have really a great cross-sharing of information occurring.

One big focus for us has been making sure we've been aggressive in making certain that they have cash flow, they have liquidity. We've actually hosted events with the Small Business Administration for our supply base. On one level, it's making certain that we help them get what they need.

We also adjust how we do business so it makes it more efficient. A great example of that is how we're doing virtual inspections now. We have teams go out and inspect parts and do different things like that. We now do them with videos and cameras so that we don't slow the supply base down. Anywhere where we can do advances and allow our supply base to do advanced delivery, we're doing that as well.

What's been the impact of pauses at your defense production lines in Puget Sound, Washington, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania? Will Boeing be able to deliver all of the military aircraft that was the books for 2020?

So for instance, with the Army, we actually did slow down the pace of Apache [attack helicopter] final assembly due to some supply chain impacts resulting from COVID. And most of those came from our efforts with our JV [joint venture] with [Indian defense company] Tata. But there is some realism in what you're talking about.

Now, I'm not seeing drastic changes at this point. But to your earlier point, we haven't gotten to the fall yet. So we're all being very pragmatic. We're being very cognizant of prioritizing what our customers need and making certain that we can support them. And then we just assess it on a case-by-case basis. And I'll defer to the services to let them publish any changes that have been agreed to or not.

Is the worst over for Boeing's defense business, or is there concern that a second wave of COVID-19 could cause a more dramatic impact?

I mean, let's be honest: If nothing else, we know the flu always hits hard in the fall/early winter time frame. So there's a compounding effect there. And so we are planning for another resurgence, but we have the benefit of what we've already been through, and a disciplined approach for how we manage it. That's really going to aid us. I'm not going to predict, other than to say we are better positioned now to handle a resurgence than we were when the thing first started.

Under your leadership, there was a realigning of some of Boeing's business divisions involved in the defense sector. But given that the operating environment has changed, do you anticipate more restructuring or changes in leadership?

I think any good leader always looks at: Do you have the right structure for the business environment and for the market? And we made some very specific decisions when I first came into this role about flattening the organization, taking out layers, reducing. We were extremely top heavy. We eliminated a lot of that. I feel very comfortable. I'm not predicting anything significant.

Do you expect an impact on foreign military sales because of the global economic downturn or because countries are trimming defense spending?

Absolutely. The industry is already seeing that nations have been affected by spending on COVID similar to the U.S., and they're having to go look at their timelines.

We have not seen any cancellations. But we have seen some acquisitions and some contracts pushed to the right. Now, you also know that many of our international deals take — you know, they're years in the making anyways. But I think it's only pragmatic for us to look at it through the lens that they're going to face the same pressures the U.S. does in terms of spending decisions. And so that's why we really need to be flexible and we need to be innovative.

Over the past few years, Boeing has bid very aggressively on a number of defense programs like MQ-25 and T-X. Considering Boeing's commercial business now faces a number of financial challenges, was that a bad move? What sort of impact will that have on Boeing as a whole over the next couple years? Will Boeing continue to employ the same bidding strategy?

I actually remain very confident in the investments we made on both the MQ-25 and the T-7. There was a lot of commentary back at that time about how much we invested. We had already redesigned, reimagined, how are we going to use advanced modeling and simulation and digital twins. And so those investments, in terms of how we design and build, I think have paid off not only for those programs you mentioned, but for the F-15EX for the air power teaming system and for everything that follows.

It wasn't just about the bid. We evolved ourselves in terms of how we did the work, not just the offering. And that was really the true differentiator. I think that enabled us to win. Going forward, I think you will see — as we're delivering these aircraft and additional orders come in — that it was exactly the right thing to do.

So the investments Boeing made in advanced manufacturing processes and digital engineering make you confident these programs won't be a repeat of the KC-46 program?

It is my goal to never have a repeat of tanker, and that was the headset that I've gone into with pretty much every decision that we make. It started with how we design and how we build, to your point, and how we sustain over the long term. We had to go prove out those advanced technologies, and we spend our investment dollars wisely to be ready to go pursue this. So these are not the same; these programs aren't even in the same ballpark.

With flight testing ongoing for an interim version of the KC-46′s remote vision system, called RVS 1.5, when do you expect the Air Force to make a decision on adopting that?

We're still waiting for that. They participate in the flight testing. As a matter of fact, we had [then-Chief of Staff of the Air Force] Gen. [Dave] Goldfein out in Seattle. He was with me just a couple of weeks ago.

We're getting real pleased with the feedback. I think you've heard [Air Force acquisition executive] Dr. [Will] Roper's comments about it, and [he's] really pleased with the path that we're on. But that'll be an Air Force decision, and so I will defer to them on that.

The Air Force will award a Ground Based Strategic Deterrent contract in August, and Boeing did not bid because of complaints with how the competition was run. Is Boeing still looking at its legal options? Is it considering a protest?

We made the decision to not bid on GBSD due to what I was concerned about with the process, and I'll just leave it at that.

What do you see as the sales potential for F-15EX?

We are already getting inquiries. We're very excited, and they are nations that you would not be surprised about.

Are you satisfied that the Navy is committed to MQ-25? What kind of future do you see for that program?

We're absolutely thrilled with the partnership with the U.S. Navy. And you probably saw that in April they increased the quantity to a total of seven. So we're well on track to what we were working with in our assumptions when we bid on the program.

We have completed nearly 30 flight hours to date, and what [Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James] Geurts saw while he was out there [at MidAmerica St. Louis Airport in St. Clair County, Illinois], was the aerial refueling store already mounted under the wing of the aircraft. As as we get back into flight testing later this year, we'll be able to collect more performance data.

https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/ceo-of-boeings-defense-wing-talks-stumbling-blocks-from-kc-46-to-covid/

Sur le même sujet

21 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - October 18, 2018
ARMY Absolute Business Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0001); Adams Communication & Engineering Technology Inc.,* Waldorf, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0002); Augustine Consulting Inc.,* Monterey, California (W15P7T-19-D-0003); Addx Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0004); Altus LLC,* Darlington, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0005); American Electronic Warfare Associates Inc.,* California, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0006); Array Information Technology Inc.,* Greenbelt, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0007); Advanced Systems Development Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0008) Attain LLC,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0009); Avenge Inc.,* Fayetteville, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0010) Axiom Resource Management Inc.,* Falls Church, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0011); B3 Solutions LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0012); Barbaricum LLC,* Washington, DC (W15P7T-19-D-0013); Bennett Aerospace Inc.,* Cary, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0014); Bowhead Logistics Solutions LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0015); Brockwell Technologies Inc.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0016); By Light Professional IT Services LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0017); C4 Planning Solutions LLC,* Blythe, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0018); Cambridge International Systems Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0019); Carley Corp.,* Orlando, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0020); Chimera Enterprises International Inc.,* Edgewood, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0021); Centech Group Inc.,* Falls Church, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0022); Chenega Technical Innovations LLC,* Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0023); Clearavenue LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0024); Client Solution Architects LLC,* Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0025); Client/Server Software Solutions Inc., doing business as Constellation,* West, Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0026); Data Matrix Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0027); Decibel Research Inc.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0028); Decisive Analytics Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0029) Delan Associates Inc.,* Freeport, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0030); Data Intelligence LLC,* Marlton, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0031); Edgesource Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0032); Enterprise Information Services Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0033); Envistacom,* LLC, Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0034); Polaris Alpha Advanced Systems Inc.,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0035); Enterprise Resource Planning International LLC,* Laurel, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0036); Enterprise Resource Performance Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0037); Fibertek Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0038); Five Rivers Services LLC,* Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0039); Frontier Technologies Inc.,* Wilmington, Delaware (W15P7T-19-D-0040); Future Technologies Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0041); Fulcrum It Services LLC,* Centreville, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0042); Futron Inc.,* Woodbridge, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0043); GaN Corp.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0044); GC&E Systems Group Inc.,* Peachtree Corners, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0045); Glacier Technologies LLC,* El Paso, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0046); Global Dimensions LLC,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0047); Global Infotek Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0048); GS5 LLC,* Dumfries, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0049); Gstek Inc.,* Chesapeake, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0050); Hebco Inc.,* Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (W15P7T-19-D-0051); Holmes-Tucker International Inc.,* Lexington Park, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0052); Ideal Innovations Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0053); IDS International Government Services LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0054); Intelligent Decision Systems Inc.,* Centreville, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0055); Innovative Emergency Management Inc.,* Morrisville, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0056); Igov Technologies Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0057); Information and Infrastructure Technologies Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0058); Information Management Group Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0059); Integral Consulting Services Inc.,* Rockville, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0060); Intelitrac Inc.,* Fort Worth, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0061); Intelligent Waves LLC,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0062); Iomaxis LLC,* Lorton, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0063); IPKeys Technologies LLC,* Eatontown, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0064); Ip Network Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0065); Impact Resources Inc.,* Springfield, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0066); ISHPI Information Technologies Inc.,* Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0067); Janus Research Group Inc.,* Appling, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0068); Karthik Consulting LLC,* Reston. Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0069); Keybridge Technologies Inc.,* Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (W15P7T-19-D-0070); Kinney Group Inc.,* Indianapolis, Indiana (W15P7T-19-D-0071); Knowledge Management Inc.,* Tyngsboro, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0072); Link Solutions Inc.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0073); Linquest Corp.,* Los Angeles, California (W15P7T-19-D-0074); Lintech Global Inc.,* Farmington Hills, Michigan (W15P7T-19-D-0075); Logyx LLC,* Mountain View, California (W15P7T-19-D-0076); Lufburrow & Co. Inc.,* Havre de Grace, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0077); Middle Bay Solutions LLC,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0078); Millennium Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0079); Morgan Business Consulting LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0080); MSK TriTech Group LLC,* Tampa, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0081); Manufacturing Techniques Inc.,* Kilmarnock, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0082); Navmar Applied Sciences Corp.,* Warminster, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0083); NES Associates LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0084); Nexagen Networks Inc.,* Morganville, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0085); Nextgen Federal Systems LLC,* Morgantown, West Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0086); Oak Grove Technologies LLC,* Raleigh, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0087); Object CTalk Inc.,* King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0088); OBXtek Inc.,* Tysons Corner, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0089); Odyssey Systems Consulting Group Ltd.,* Wakefield, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0090); OST Inc.,* Washington, DC (W15P7T-19-D-0091); Paragon Research Corp.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0092); PCI Strategic Management LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0093); PD Systems Inc.,* Springfield, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0094); Peerless Technologies Corp.,* Fairborn, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0095); Pelatron Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W15P7T-19-D-0096); P E Systems Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0097); Pitech Solutions Inc.,* Durham, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0098); Pluribus International Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0099); Pragmatics Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0100); Praxis Engineering Technologies LLC,* Annapolis Junction, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0101); Premier Management Corp.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0102); Professional Solutions1 LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0103); Pro-Sphere Tek Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0104); Polaris Alpha Cyber and Sigint LLC,* Annapolis Junction, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0105); People, Technology and Processes LLC,* Lakeland, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0106); QBase LLC,* Beavercreek, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0107); Research Innovations Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0108); Sabre Systems Inc.,* Warrington, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0109); Savantage Financial Services Inc.,* Rockville, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0110); SBG Technology Solutions Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0111); Sealing Technologies Inc.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0112); Secure Innovations LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0113); Sev1tech Inc.,* Woodbridge, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0114); S&K Aerospace LLC,* Saint Ignatius, Montana (W15P7T-19-D-0115); SNR Systems LLC,* Ashburn, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0116); Solers Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0117); Soliel LLC,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0118); Sonalysts Inc.,* Waterford, Connecticut (W15P7T-19-D-0119); Spectrum Software Technology Inc.,* Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0120); Science and Technology Corp.,* Hampton, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0121); Systems Technology Forum Ltd.,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0122); Strategic Operational Solutions Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0123); Subsystem Technologies Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0124); Superlative Technologies Inc.,* Ashburn, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0125); SURVICE Engineering Co. LLC,* Belcamp, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0126); Systems Technologies Inc.,* West Long Branch, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0127); Technology and Management International LLC,* Toms River, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0128); Total Computer Solutions Inc.,* Burke, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0129); Technatomy Corp.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0130); Telesis Corp.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0131) Informatics Applications Group Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0132); Trace Systems Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0133); Tribalco LLC,* Bethesda, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0134); TriHawk LLC,* Houston, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0135); TriMech Services LLC,* Glen Allen, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0136); Truestone LLC,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0137); Unified Business Technologies Inc.,* Troy, Michigan (W15P7T-19-D-0138); Universal Solutions International Inc.,* Newport News, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0139); Validatek Inc.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0140); Varen Technologies Inc.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0141); Veteran Corps of America,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0142); Wakelight Technologies Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W15P7T-19-D-0143); Windmill International Inc.,* Nashua, New Hampshire (W15P7T-19-D-0144); WinTec Arrowmaker Inc.,* Fort Washington, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0145); WisEngineering LLC,* Dover, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0146); Zantech IT Services Inc.,* Tysons Corner, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0147); Zolon Tech Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0148); Abacus Technology Corp., Chevy Chase, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0149); Accenture Federal Services LLC, Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0150); AceInfo Solutions Inc., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0151); Alion Science and Technology Corp., Burr Ridge, Illinois (W15P7T-19-D-0152); Artel LLC, Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0153); AT&T Government Solutions Inc., Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0154); Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Beavercreek, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0155); Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0156); CACI Technologies Inc., Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0157); HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0158); Comtech Mobile Datacom Corp., Germantown, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0159); Cubic Global Defense Inc., San Diego, California (W15P7T-19-D-0160); DynCorp International LLC, Fort Worth, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0161); Dynetics Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0162); Engility Corp., Andover, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0163); Gryphon Technologies LC, Washington, District of Columbia (W15P7T-19-D-0164); Kbrwyle Technology Solutions LLC, Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0165); IAI LLC, Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0166); International Business Machines Corp., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0167); Hexagon US Federal Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0168); Information Innovators Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0169); Polaris Alpha LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0170); Jacobs Technology Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee (W15P7T-19-D-0171); Kforce Government Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0172); L-3 Communications Integrated Systems LP, Greenville, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0173); Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0174); Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0175); Macaulay-Brown Inc., Dayton, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0176); NetCentric Technology LLC, Wall, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0177); Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0178); Novetta Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0179); Oasis Systems LLC, Lexington, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0180); Parsons Government Services Inc., Pasadena, California (W15P7T-19-D-0181); Preferred Systems Solutions Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0182); QED Systems Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0183); Raytheon Co., Dulles, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0184); System Studies & Simulation Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0185); Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0186); Salient Federal Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0187); Smartronix Inc., Hollywood, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0188); The KEYW Corp., Hanover, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0189); Scientific Research Corp., Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0190); SRC Inc., North Syracuse, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0191); SRCTec LLC, Syracuse, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0192); Strategic Resources Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0193); Telecommunication Systems Inc., Annapolis, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0194); Vectrus Systems Corp., Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0195); Vencore Inc., Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0196); VSE Corp., Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0197); and CAS Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0198), will compete for each order of the $37,400,000,000 hybrid (cost, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and firm-fixed-price) contract for provide knowledge based professional engineering support services for programs with command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) related requirements. Bids were solicited via the internet with 388 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 14, 2022. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Navistar Defense LLC, Lisle, Illinois, was awarded a $19,700,110 modification (P00010) to contract W56HZV-15-D-0037 for sustainment technical support services for the in-production and out-of-production Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MaxxPro family of vehicles. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2020. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity. NAVY Austal USA, Mobile, Alabama, is awarded a $57,854,366 cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized contract action for procurement of long-lead-time material and production engineering for the expeditionary fast transport (EPF) 13. The EPF class provides high-speed, shallow-draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army. Work will be performed in Novi, Michigan (30 percent); Mobile, Alabama (15 percent); Houston, Texas (9 percent); Slidell, Louisiana (8 percent); Franklin, Massachusetts (8 percent); Chesapeake, Virginia (7 percent); Rhinelander, Wisconsin (5 percent); Iron Mountain, Michigan (2 percent); and Dallas, Texas (2 percent); with other efforts performed at various locations throughout the U.S. below one percent (2 percent); and at various locations outside the U.S. below one percent (12 percent). Work on EPF 13 is expected to be completed by November 2021. Fiscal 2018 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $43,390,775 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-19-C-2227). *Small Business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1666213/source/GovDelivery/
7 mai 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

The US Navy’s unmanned dream: A common control system
By: David B. Larter NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The U.S. Navy's growing and increasingly diverse portfolio of unmanned systems is creating a jumble of control systems, creating problems for a force that hopes robot ships, aircraft and submarines will help it regain a significant advantage over rivals China and Russia. One significant issue is having to train sailors on a number of different systems, which can prove time-consuming, inefficient and expensive. “From a manned-machine teaming and sailor-integration perspective, we need a portfolio of systems to do a wide variety of things,” said Capt. Pete Small, the head of unmanned maritime systems at Naval Sea Systems Command. “We can't bring a different interface for each platform to our sailors — from a training perspective but also from an integration perspective. “We might have a destroyer that needs to operate an [unmanned surface vessel] and an [unmanned underwater vehicle] and they all need to be linked back to a shore command center. So we've got to have common communications protocols to make that all happen, and we want to reduce the burden on sailors to go do that.” That's driving the Navy toward a goal of having one control system to run all the unmanned platforms in the service's portfolio: a goal that is a good ways away, Small said. “The end state is — future state nirvana — would be one set of software that you could do it all on,” he said. “I think that's a faraway vision. And the challenges are every unmanned system is a little bit different and has its own requirements. And each of the integration points — a destroyer, a shore base or a submarine — has slightly different integration requirements as well. “But the vision is that we can enjoy commonality as much as possible and share pieces of software wherever possible.” The effort mirrors a similar endeavor in the surface Navy to develop a single combat system that controls every ship's systems. The goal here is that if a sailor who is trained on a big-deck amphibious ship transfers to a destroyer, no extra training will be necessary to run the equipment on the destroyer. “That's an imperative going forward — we have to get to one, integrated combat system,” Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, the chief of naval operations' director of surface warfare, said in a December interview at the Pentagon with Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2019/05/06/the-us-navys-unmanned-dream-a-common-control-system
22 juin 2018 | International, Naval, Terrestre

BAE wins Marine Corps contract to build new amphibious combat vehicle
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — BAE Systems has won a contract to build the Marine Corps' new amphibious combat vehicle following a competitive evaluation period where BAE's vehicle was pitted against an offering from SAIC. The contract allows for the company to enter into low-rate initial production with 30 vehicles expected to be delivered by fall of 2019, valued at $198 million. The Marines plan to field 204 of the vehicles. The total value of the contract with all options exercised is expected to amount to about $1.2 billion. The awarding of the contract gets the Corps “one step closer to delivering this capability to the Marines,” John Garner, Program Executive Officer, Land Systems Marine Corps, said during a media round table held Tuesday. But the Corps isn't quite done refining its new ACV. The vehicle is expected to undergo incremental changes with added new requirements and modernization. The Corps is already working on the requirements for ACV 1.2, which will include a lethality upgrade for the amphibous vehicle. BAE's ACV vehicle will eventually replace the Corps' legacy amphibious vehicle, but through a phased approach. The Assault Amphibious Vehicle is currently undergoing survivability upgrades to keep the Cold War era vehicle ticking into 2035. BAE Systems and SAIC were both awarded roughly $100 million each in November 2015 to deliver 16 prototypes to the Marine Corps for evaluation in anticipation of a down select to one vendor in 2018. [BAE, SAIC Named as Finalists in Marines ACV Competition] All government testing of the prototypes concluded the first week of December 2017 and the Marine Corps issued its request for proposals the first week in January 2018. Operational tests also began concurrently. Government testing included land reliability testing, survivability and blast testing and water testing — both ship launch and recovery as well as surf transit. Operational evaluations included seven prototypes each from both SAIC and BAE Systems, six participated and one spare was kept for backup. BAE Systems' partnered with Italian company Iveco Defense Vehicles to build its ACV offering. [BAE Systems completes Amphibious Combat Vehicle shipboard testing] Some of the features BAE believed were particularly attractive for a new ACV is that it has space for 13 embarked Marines and a crew of three, which keeps the rifle squad together. The engine's strength is 690 horsepower over the old engine's 560 horsepower, and it runs extremely quietly. The vehicle has a V-shaped hull to protect against underbody blasts, and the seat structure is completely suspended. SAIC's vehicle, which was built in Charleston, South Carolina, offered improved traction through a central tire-inflation system to automatically increase or decrease tire pressure. It also had a V-hull certified during tests at the Nevada Automotive Test Center — where all prototypes were tested by the Marine Corps — and had blast-mitigating seats to protect occupants. The 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division out of Camp Pendleton, California, is expected to receive the first ACV 1.1 vehicles. Marine Corps Times reporter Shawn Snow contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/19/bae-wins-marine-corps-contract-to-build-new-amphibious-combat-vehicle/

Toutes les nouvelles