26 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
24 décembre 2023 | International, Sécurité
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces remind you that North American Aerospace Defense Command is ready to track Santa on Dec. 24, for the program’s 68th year.
16 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
AIR FORCE LinQuest Corp., Los Angeles, California, has been awarded a $200,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity for advisory and assistance services in support of Space Operations Command. Work will be performed at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, and is expected to be completed Feb. 28, 2030. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and one offer was received. Fiscal 2021 Space Force operation and maintenance funds in the amount $12,730,301 are being obligated at the time of award. Space Operations Command/Space Acquisition Management – Directorate, Peterson AFB, Colorado, is the contracting activity (FA2518-21-D-0001). U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND Reservoir International LLC, Fayetteville, North Carolina, was awarded a $200,000,000 maximum indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (H92239-21-D-0001) for Army Special Operations Forces training support services in support of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and 1st Special Warfare Training Group. Fiscal 2021 operation and maintenance funds in the amount of $3,449,752 are being obligated at the time of award. The work will be performed in the vicinity of Camp MacKall, North Carolina, until January 2026. The contract was awarded competitively among service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses with nine proposals received. U.S. Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY Valor Network Inc., Metuchen, New Jersey (HT0015-21-D-0001), was awarded a $73,532,325 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide professional diagnostic radiology interpretive services to the Military Health System (MHS). The base year amount of the contract is $13,369,448. The contract has four 12-month option periods. This enterprise contract is to support the continued implementation of the MHS organizational reform required by 10 U.S. Code § 1073c, and sections 711 and 712 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2019, effective Oct. 25, 2019, which eliminated separate silos of military healthcare and officially integrated healthcare under the authority, direction, and control of the Defense Health Agency, consistent with the direction provided by the secretary of defense. This contract was a competitive acquisition with eight proposals received. Fiscal 2021 operation and maintenance funds in the amount of $13,369,448 are being obligated at time of award. The Defense Health Agency, Enterprise Medical Support Contracting Division, San Antonio, Texas, is the contracting activity. (Awarded Feb. 12, 2021) ARMY General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan, was awarded a $20,652,845 modification (P00127) to contract W56HZV-17-C-0067 for Abrams systems technical support. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of June 22, 2022. Fiscal 2010 Foreign Military Sales (Kuwait) funds; fiscal 2021 operation and maintenance (Army) funds; and fiscal 2019, 2020 and 2021 other procurement (Army) funds in the amount of $20,652,845 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, is the contracting activity. Raytheon Co., Dulles, Virginia, was awarded an $8,220,193 modification (P00042) to contract W52P1J-16-C-0046 for multinational information sharing services. Work will be performed in Kuwait, with an estimated completion date of July 15, 2021. Fiscal 2021 operation and maintenance (Army) funds in the amount of $1,895,193 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity. Carbro Constructors Corp.,* Hillsborough, New Jersey, was awarded a $7,773,175 modification (P00004) to contract W912DS-19-C-0035 for construction of flood-control measures for Green Brook Segment C1. Work will be performed in Middlesex, New Jersey, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 13, 2021. Fiscal 2010 civil construction funds in the amount of $7,773,175 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, New York, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2504777/
29 octobre 2019 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — Submarine building, the pride of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding efforts over the past decade, is facing a mountain of uncertainty, a point underscored by the replacement of senior members of General Dynamics leadership, compounding delays with construction of the Virginia-class submarine and nagging questions about the quality of the work after a high-profile welding issue threatened to trip up the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub program at the starting line. Adding to the uncertainty for General Dynamics, which operates the Electric Boat shipyard in Connecticut, are indications that profits from constructing Virginia-class subs may be slipping. And challenges in training new workers in the complex world of building subs as well as concerns that the Columbia program might negatively affect General Dynamics' bottom line are impacting General Dynamics' partner yard Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia, as well as the U.S. Navy. Furthermore, a contract for the significantly larger Block V Virginia-class submarine, expected to be one of the largest in the Navy's history, has been repeatedly delayed amid disputes over labor rates, sources told Defense News. That contract is more than a year past due, according to Navy budget documents. In September, General Dynamics pushed out Electric Boat President Jeffrey Geiger. Industry and Navy sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Geiger's replacement was the culmination of mounting frustration on the part of the Navy. That came to a head when quality control issues surfaced with missile tubes in production destined for the Virginia Payload Module, Columbia-class subs and the United Kingdom's replacement ballistic missile sub. Geiger's ouster came on the heals of General Dynamics replacing long-time executive John Casey as head of the Marine Systems division when he retired earlier this year. The shakeup, delays and lingering issues put the Navy and the submarine-building enterprise at a crossroads. It's clear that the Navy's efforts to ramp up production of its Virginia-class attack boats ahead of Columbia have encountered myriad issues and delays. But while delays may be acceptable for the Virginia program, the interconnected nature of submarine building means those delays could eek into a program that the Navy has for years insisted cannot be delayed any further: the replacement of its aging Ohio-class ballistic missile subs, part of the nuclear deterrent triad. The Navy has said Columbia must be ready for its first patrol in 2031 to ensure the nation doesn't fall below a dangerous threshold where retiring Ohio-class submarines leaving the country without an adequate number of boats to execute its deterrent strategy. But to head that off, the Navy may have reduce its expectations of the industrial base's capacity to build submarines, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank and a retired submarine officer. “The Navy is going to have to reduce its appetite for submarine capacity while it gets the construction process in a better position,” he said. “All of the things we have seen in the past year in the submarine-building enterprise are the results of the ramped-up production levels and the challenges that EB [Electric Boat] faces in hiring more workers up in Connecticut. “They've been growing capacity, investing in infrastructure; they're trying to hire a bunch of workers and design engineers. [But] there just isn't a large workforce of those kinds of people up there as opposed to in Hampton Roads or the Gulf Coast. So there are a lot of challenges in ramping up production to [increase] Virginia-class production and, in addition, starting Columbia and beginning the Virginia Payload Module-equipped Virginias, which is a 30 percent larger submarine.” A bridge to Columbia In March, Defense News reported that all the Virginia-class submarines under construction were between four and seven months behind schedule. Naval Sea Systems Command pointed to the cumulative effect of ramping up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year. In a statement, the service's top acquisition official said the Navy was continuing to confront material, labor and shipyard infrastructure issues. Labor issues in particular hit the Newport News yard, which told investors in a recent earnings call that profits had slipped by about 23 percent on the Virginia sub building because of delays associated with labor issues. In the face of the mounting issues, the Navy should be willing to make difficult choices to get back on an even footing, Clark said. “Are we going to make some tough choices and dial back submarine construction deliberately to make sure we can get Columbia started correctly?” he asked. “And that means maybe we slow down Virginia, maybe we go to one per year for at least a couple of years to catch up.” Clark said the Navy should continue to fund two submarines per year but should expect that they will take longer to build while General Dynamics and Newport News stabilize their labor and parts issues. Paring back submarine production is a tough pill to swallow for the Navy, as it's been fighting for years to prevent a shortfall of attack submarines in the coming decade. The Navy expects its inventory of attack boats to drop from 52 to 42 by the late 2020s as Cold War-era Los Angeles-class attack subs retire. Furthermore, there's the question of whether scaling back production might invite a funding cut, which could make matters worse. The supplier and labor issues, after all, primarily stem from the 1990s when the Navy all but stopped buying submarines, which resulted in a contraction of the number of businesses that built submarine parts and a loss in skilled laborers who knew how to build them. Less funding would likely have a detrimental effect on sub-building efforts, said Bill Greenwalt, a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer. “Under our current budget and appropriations process, slowing down — which likely implies cutting program funding — would exacerbate industrial base problems as it already has in the past due to lack of program demand,” Greenwalt said. “Congress and the Navy need to be prepared for industrial base surprises and seriously face the past problem of the underfunding of naval shipbuilding.” “A flexible schedule and more realistic and flexible funding mechanisms will be needed to meet whatever industrial base challenges ... will inevitably arise,” he added. “In the near term we may even need to look at some of our allies' capabilities to meet shortfalls and help us keep on schedule until we rebuild U.S. capacity.” Greenwalt's view tracks with that of General Dynamics, according to a source with knowledge of the company's thinking on the difficulties it has faced. The company considers ramping up production on the Virginia-class sub as essential to building a sufficient labor force and supplier capacity so the resources are available to build Columbia class on schedule, the source said. ‘Two-hump camel' The Navy's top acquisition official, James Geurts, has similarly described the issue. On the possibility of building a third Virginia-class submarine in 2023, Geurts told the House Armed Services Committee's sea power panel in March that it would benefit the Columbia-building effort. “We can get some of the additional workforce trained up, get some more of the supplier base and get some of the supplier builds out of the way before Columbia gets here,” he said. Officials everywhere seem to agree that the labor force is the most critical factor when it comes to getting submarine building on track. In an exit interview with Defense News in August, outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said turnover at shipyards was a challenge but also an exciting chance to build a new generation of skilled labor. “We're asking a lot of the submarine industrial base right now to continue with Virginia, two to three per year including that payload module, and deliver Columbia,” Richardson said. “And the workforce is going through a transformation. “The people who built and delivered the Virginia program, the Los Angeles program and Seawolf — those folks are retiring. We used to have this two-hump camel in terms of the demographics of the shipyard: You had the Cold Warriors and you had the post-9/11 folks. And that Cold War hump is gone. And I think that although it's going through some friction right now, it's really inculcating, indoctrinating and educating a brand-new workforce.” Richardson also sounded a note of warning about work quality, saying that the managers overseeing the work for the submarine-building enterprise must be on top of their jobs. “We've had some welding issues: We've got to be on that,” he said. “[It's] a lot closer oversight as we educate this new team.” Clarification: The story has been updated to better reflect the arguments surrounding the future of submarine building. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/28/after-a-leadership-shakeup-at-general-dynamics-a-murky-future-for-submarine-building/