23 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

CSAF Goldfein’s Top COVID-19 Supply Chain Worry: F-35

Goldfein said up to now no major programs have shown any signs of being "in a critical state ... at risk of cancellation" due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.

By

WASHINGTON: Gen. Jay Raymond, as head of Space Command, will lead efforts to determine how to combat expected interference with GPS receivers from the future Ligado 5G wireless mobile communication network, says Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein.

“We are both very concerned about this,” Goldfein told the Defense Writers Group this morning. “The best way I've heard it described ... is, if you're in a room trying to have a quiet conversation, and in the next room you've got a 500-watt speaker blaring music. Chief Raymond and I are looking at different mitigation steps,” he added. “It's a huge challenge.”

Goldfein explained that, as the SPACECOM commander, Raymond is the combatant commander charged with spectrum management so any mitigation plan would be primarily his responsibility — with Goldfein serving a support function as the service chief. However, he noted that, since Raymond is dual-hatted as chief of Space Force, the two peers “will work together closely with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide options” to DoD Secretary Mark Esper.

Much of Goldfein's conversation with reporters this morning centered on the affects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the service and its programs, as well as his service's responses. A few weeks ago the service went through what he called a “reset to the new normal” as senior officials worked out methodologies to ensure its highest priority missions could be maintained “despite a 15 to 20 percent infection rate.”<

Those key mission sets, he said, are “the nuclear mission, the space mission and certain elements of the cyber mission,” as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Finally, he said, “Air mobility is critical — they're becoming, with our medical professionals, the MVPs of the COVID response.”

Goldfein said no major programs have shown signs of being “in a critical state ... at risk of cancellation,” but that he is hearing from subordinates that “we're going to experience some delays going forward.” The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the program he's watching most closely, followed by the KC-46 tanker, the B-21 bomber (which he said is going very well), and the T-7A trainer jet program to replace the venerable T-38. And the CSAF is working with Raymond to keep an eye on major space programs.

Goldfein said he has been in running conversations with his overseas counterparts about how to ensure that the supply chain, especially for the F-35 program, can be maintained during the pandemic. Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson told investors yesterday that F-35 production is expected to slow down due to supply chain difficulties; and Ellen Lord, DoD head of acquisition, told reporters on Monday the Pentagon is seeing an average three-month slowdown in major programs across the board.

“We've started a robust discussion with the international air chiefs,” he said. “I was on the phone yesterday with the chief of staff of the Italian Air Force and the chief of staff of the Canadian Air Force. Tomorrow, I've actually got a series of phone calls with industry leaders.”

The key question, he said, is: “How do we collaborate and ensure that the tier-two and tier-three suppliers remain healthy through this COVID period, so that we have a healthy industrial base at the back end of it?”

There are seven foreign partners in the Joint Strike Fighter program: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. Turkey's participation as a partner has been suspended due to its purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system. There are also three Foreign Military Sale (FMS) customers: Israel, Japan and South Korea.

As for the KC-46, Goldfein said that the Air Force is still evaluating Boeing's offer to pay for and install software fixes to the faulty Remote Visual System boom camera on the 33 aircraft already delivered. As Breaking D readers know, service acquisition head Will Roper early this month announced a deal with Boeing to develop and install a replacement for the RVS system, called “RVS 2.0,” based on new hardware and software. At that time, Boeing KC-46 program manager Jamie Burgess told reporters that the company expected its software enhancements to be fielded by the second half of 2021.

Goldfein said the software fixes “are an interim solution” that “may — and I emphasize may — allow us to start some limited tanking operations. We are going to flesh that out,” he said, calling Boeing's proposed upgrade the RVS 1.5.

“I'm 100 percent confident it won't solve all the challenges,” he added. “The only thing that will solve that is 2.0, and we cannot let our foot off the gas for any other interim solution because 2.0 is a fix that we have got to get to.”

Goldfein stressed, however, that the service is also using the pandemic as an opportunity. For example, he noted that the steep learning curve the Air Force has been on with regard to teleworking and remote connectivity will be something that helps service operations in the future, as well as “a lot of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) technology we've been able to advance.”

Indeed, Roper told reporters last week that the service has rushed the so-called “deviceONE” system that allows classified information to be securely accessed via remote tablets and phones into the hands of senior service members.

DeviceONE is one of the subsystems making up the Air Force's Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), being developed to help implement JADC2. Based on what is known in the industry as a “zero trust” security protocol that prevents classified information from being stored on the user's device but allows secure access to that information where it is stored in the cloud, Roper said, deviceONE now has been certified by the National Security Agency (NSA) for DoD use.

“We've ordered 50, and have plans to order 400, and we would like to order 4,000, he said, noting that the expansion into the thousands requires new funding.

In response to my question about the new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) blasting the ABMS program for lacking a clear acquisition plan, Goldfein stressed that he personally is working with GAO. “I'm eager to sit down with them and get them up to speed,” he said.

Goldfein noted that the report had “a bit of latency” inherent between its completion and release; for example, the GAO team wasn't able to include results from the first “OnRamp” test of ABMS tech in December.

In addition, he said, much of the ABMS effort is classified, which meant that the GAO team didn't have access to all the information that could have helped explain what the service is doing and planning. The rapid pace of the program, with upgrades to technologies every four months presents a challenge for GAO and Congress to keep up with the program.

But, he stressed, some ABMS technologies already are being used — including by Northern Command's Gen. Terrence O'Shaugnessy — to respond to COVID-19.

UPDATE BEGINS. In a statement to Breaking D today (April 23), the GAO pushed back on Goldfein's characterization of the ABMS report — saying that GAO received information, both classified and unclassified, through March.

“Although we did not attend the December demo, we did request and received information related to that demo that was incorporated into our unclassified report,” said Marie Mak, GAO Director in the email statement. She added:

“I believe GAO has a full understanding of the past and ongoing ABMS efforts. Actually even before that December exercise, we coordinated quite often with the Air Force on the classified side and my staff and I participated in numerous classified discussions. Those discussions did not change our finding that the Air Force still does not have an overall plan for ABMS, a point which they openly acknowledged and in fact concurred with our recommendation. Ultimately the fact that some ABMS work is classified did not impact our review of overall ABMS planning efforts. The Air Force still needs to develop an overall plan, to include preliminary costs and schedule. Without some type of overall plan in place, it will be difficult for the Air Force to prioritize this program among the acquisition efforts within the Air Force.

We will continue to maintain oversight of the ABMS efforts (both classified and unclassified) as it progresses.” UPDATE ENDS.

The next challenge, Goldfein said, is for the Air Force — and indeed all of DoD — to figure out how to face what he calls “the new abnormal” with the specter of a new round of the pandemic emerging next fall.

“What we are looking at now, though, is a new reset — a 1 June reset — to what I call not the new normal but the new abnormal,” Goldfein said. He defined this as “living and operating with a cyclical virus until we get a vaccine,” something that he said isn't likely for “upwards of a year.” He said that just yesterday he had a two-hour video conference with the MAJCOM commanders and the service's senior general officer leadership to discuss “how we posture ourselves” for that new future.

“And, you know, there are some things that, quite frankly, I hope we never go back to,” he said, “in terms of how we're now delivering content [and] upping our game,” he said.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/csaf-goldfeins-top-covid-19-supply-chain-worry-f-35

Sur le même sujet

  • Should Army Compete With Industry On OMFV?

    27 juillet 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Should Army Compete With Industry On OMFV?

    Industry sources say the Army shouldn't enter its own in-house design team in the race to replace the M2 Bradley. Top Army officials told us why it would work. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 24, 2020 at 7:00 AM WASHINGTON: Is fourth time the charm? After three failed attempts to replace the Reagan-era M2 Bradley troop carrier with better tech for modern warfare, the Army has a bold new strategy &ndash; one that could include a government design team competing head-to-head against contractors. The draft Request For Proposals (RFP), released Friday, raised some eyebrows in industry. But in an exclusive interview with Breaking Defense, Army officials told me a government team should stimulate, not stifle, much-needed innovation and competition. &ldquo;We recognize that this does generate some concerns about potential organizational conflicts of interest,&rdquo; said James Schirmer, the Deputy Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems. &ldquo;We certainly take those seriously.&rdquo; The potential government team is now developing a formal &ldquo;Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan,&rdquo; creating organizational firewalls so the Army team can't influence the requirements or selection process, Schirmer told me. If that plan doesn't pass muster with Army lawyers, he said bluntly, &ldquo;then we would be prohibited from awarding a contract to the government team.&rdquo; &ldquo;To my knowledge, there's not a direct example of something similar occurring,&rdquo; Schirmer agreed. But armored combat vehicles are a uniquely military design problem with few equivalents in the commercial world. &ldquo;If you look at small arms, while we do have expertise in-house, there's a commercial industry that is very, very similar to the small arms that we're procuring for the military,&rdquo; Schirmer told me. &ldquo;If you look at aviation, while there's obviously some very important differences with military aircraft versus civilian ones, there's an awful lot of similarities.&rdquo; &ldquo;On the combat vehicle side, they're aren't as many similarities,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;The engines that we use in commercial trucking can't survive under armor without cooling.... Our suspension systems are not unlike some commercial construction equipment, but we drive our vehicles at much higher speeds and are generally much heavier.&rdquo; Meanwhile, Army scientists and engineers have spent decades studying everything from engines to armaments, from automated targeting systems to complete concepts for new vehicles. &ldquo;We've got government folks that are really experts on combat vehicles and have good ideas,&rdquo; Schirmer told me. &ldquo;This phase primarily is generating ideas... potentially some innovation from inside our own halls.&rdquo; That said, Schirmer didn't rule out the possibility that a government team might compete in later phases of the program &ndash; not just in developing &ldquo;preliminary digital designs,&rdquo; the subject of the draft RFP, but potentially in building a physical prototype vehicle as well. Actual mass production, however, would definitely be up to the private sector. &ldquo;The government's got the ability to build prototypes,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;The challenge would be the transition from an EMD [Engineering & Manufacturing Development]-like prototype into a production asset. That's something, typically, the government has not done.&rdquo; So, he said, &ldquo;the government team might need some help in that phase.&rdquo; A government team might need help crafting a sufficiently detailed design that a contractor could actually build a working vehicle from it. Conversely, the manufacture would have to set up their supply chain and production line without the benefit of having done a prototype beforehand. &ldquo;We'd have to figure out how we do that if the government were to continue as a competitor,&rdquo; Schirmer said. &ldquo;But to be honest, we have not thought beyond this phase&rdquo; in any detail. Remember, the Army's still seeking industry feedback on the draft RFP; it has until next year to revise and finalize it. So at this point, it's not certain that a government team will even enter the current phase of the competition, let alone win a contract to develop the preliminary digital design. &ldquo;We have room to award up to five contracts,&rdquo; Schirmer said. &ldquo;Even if the government team is one of those, there will be four additional contracts for industry.&rdquo; &ldquo;There's plenty of room for industry to get in and win,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;I don't think they're going to be at a disadvantage relative to ... the government team.&rdquo; Industry experts and insiders weren't so sure. Skeptics Speak Out &ldquo;Let's face some reality first,&rdquo; said Bill Greenwalt, an acquisition veteran who's worked in both the Pentagon and Congress. &ldquo;There is no way the Army can effectively mitigate conflict of interest with a government design team, and there is no way that the government team will not have an advantage, through access to information flow within the Army's chain of command not available to the private sector.&rdquo; After three previous failed attempts to replace the Bradley &ndash; FCS, GCV, and the first version of OMFV &ndash; the Army rebooted the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program and tried to give industry wide leeway to come up with solutions, instead of prescribing rigid requirements. But with the new mandate for a two-man crew and the proposal for a government design team, Greenwalt lamented, &ldquo;just when the Army has finally asked industry to come up with a solution rather than dictate it to them, it seems they have signaled what they really want to do is dictate the solution.&rdquo; &ldquo;Unfortunately, for decades, the Army has [been] wanting to return to the pre-World War II arsenal system where they controlled everything but were woefully un-innovative,&rdquo; Greenwalt told me. &ldquo;Rather than this half measure they should just nationalize the industrial base and get it over with and then see what kind of innovation they come up with.&rdquo; Two industry sources, who asked to remain anonymous, expressed similar skepticism that the Army's Combat Capabilities Development Center (CCDC) and its subordinate commands, particularly the Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC), can pull this off. &ldquo;I anticipate the CCDC and its conglomerate of R&D facilities will think they can compete and win,&rdquo; one industry source told me. &ldquo;Their design will be exquisite and probably un-manufacturable.&rdquo; &ldquo;The CCDC and its R&D teams are under intense pressure from Futures Command to prove their value for the voluminous funding they have received over the last 10 years,&rdquo; the source continued. &ldquo;Armaments Center (formerly ARDEC) has the best track record for working with industry on guns, cannons (ERCA) and ammo, but GVSC (formerly TARDEC) has an abysmal record of having any of its technology investment migrating to a fielded platform.&rdquo; &ldquo;I'm not in agreement with the Army on the acquisition strategy,&rdquo; another industry source told me. &ldquo;They think there are companies that would welcome the government business [to mass-produce a government design]. But I'm always skeptical of a build-to-print proposal when the company doing the production has little invested in the design. The government loses out on innovation and cost in the process, because there is no incentive to improve or advance the product.&rdquo; Greenwalt put the skeptics' bottom line most bluntly: &ldquo;Private industry should think long and hard about whether to potentially waste their valuable engineering talent and bid & proposal dollars on such a competition.&rdquo; Army officials, however, argued that they've set the competition up to let industry participate at minimal risk. &ldquo;They submit a proposal, and then the government is paying them for their initial design,&rdquo; said Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, director of armored vehicle modernization at Army Futures Command. While the final value is still being worked out, each of the up to five contract awards for the next phase should include enough funding for industry to get through Preliminary Design Review (PDR) without having to invest additional money of their own. But what if a company feels it's not competitive without investing its own Independent Research And Development (IRAD), as General Dynamics in particular has already done over the years? &ldquo;That's a question for industry, [but] that is not the intent of the program,&rdquo; Coffman told me. &ldquo;We're trying to reduce risk for industry.&rdquo; The Army wants a wide range of competitors &ndash; definitely from industry, but perhaps in-house as well &ndash; to offer the widest possible range of ideas. OMFV could resemble a Bradley rebuilt with the best available 21st century tech, or it could look nothing like a 20th century Infantry Fighting Vehicle at all. &ldquo;Industry has a choice,&rdquo; Coffman said. &ldquo;Industry can use a traditional IFV model... or industry can provide a different manner in which we will transport our infantrymen on the battlefield in the most dangerous places on Earth.&rdquo; &ldquo;I think we're going to see a lot of unique solutions to the problem,&rdquo; he said. The biggest technological innovation the Army's seeking: replacing the three-man crew used in the Bradley &ndash; and almost every comparable IFV worldwide &ndash; with just two humans assisted by powerful software. Why the Army thinks that's achievable, and why some are skeptical, is the topic for Part II of this story, coming Monday. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/should-army-compete-with-industry-on-omfv/

  • Royal Canadian Air Force to buy air-to-air missiles from U.S.

    1 novembre 2017 | International, Aérospatial

    Royal Canadian Air Force to buy air-to-air missiles from U.S.

    Nov. 1 (UPI) -- The State Department announced Wednesday a possible sale of up to 32 AIM-120D Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles to one of America's &quot;Five Eyes&quot; partner, Canada. Congress was notified of the possible $140 million sale on Tuesday, which includes the 32 AMRAAMs, as well as 18 AMRAAM Captive Air Training Missiles; four AMRAAM Non-Development Item-Airborne Instrumentation Units, two AMRAAM Instrumented Test Vehicles, seven spare AMRAAM guidance units and four spare AMRAAM control sections for use on their F/A-18 aircrafts. &quot;Included in the sale are containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, spares and repair parts; warranties; weapon system support and test equipment; publications and technical documentation; software development, integration, and support; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support; and other related elements of logistics and program support,&quot; the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a press release. The missiles will be used on Royal Canadian Air Force fighter aircraft and are said to contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally. DSCA says the sale of armament is required to support the Royal Canadian Air Force fighters to &quot;optimally fulfill&quot; both North American Aerospace Defense and NATO missions. The deal also meets the U.S. Northern Command's goals of combined air operation's interoperability and standardization between Canadian and U.S. forces, according to the press statement. The State Department assesses that the proposed sale of equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region, in addition to having no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of the sale. Raytheon Missile Systems, out of Tucson, Ariz., will provide the equipment and support for the Royal Canadian Air Force. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/11/01/Royal-Canadian-Air-Force-to-buy-air-to-air-missiles-from-US/9601509554420/

  • Naval Group launches the construction of the first digital frigate for the French Navy

    25 octobre 2019 | International, Naval

    Naval Group launches the construction of the first digital frigate for the French Navy

    October 24, 2019 - The steel-cutting ceremony of the first defence and intervention frigate (FDI) took place on the Naval Group site of Lorient. The ceremony was led in the presence of the Minister for Armed Forces, Florence Parly, the Head of the French Armament Directorate (DGA) Délégué général pour l'Armement, Joël Barre, the Chief of Staff of the French Navy Christophe Prazuck, the Chief of the Hellenic Navy Nikolaos Tsounis, many French officials and foreign delegations as well as Naval Group CEO, Hervé Guillou. The First of class will be delivered in 2023 and is part of a series of five vessels. Sylvain Perrier, Naval Group Director of the FDI program declared during this event: &ldquo;Today, after the successful completion of the initial studies and development phases, we are proud, to reach this first industrial milestone. This ceremony is the first for this major program for which, the DGA will be in charge of prime contract management to the benefit of the French Navy. Thanks to this program, Naval Group will also keep on developing its international exposure. This program will increase to fifteen the number of first-rank frigates of the French Navy, as planned in the French military spending plan (LPM). We were able to uphold our commitment thanks to the collaborative work model we adopted with our client and to the mobilisation of state and industrial actors.&rdquo; A digital multi-mission 4,500 tons-class frigate The FDI is a high sea vessel with a 4,500 tons class displacement. Multipurpose and resilient, she is capable of operating, alone or within a naval force, through all of types of warfare: antisurface, anti air, anti-submarine and allows for special forces projection. Strongly armed (Exocet MM40 B3C anti-surface missiles, Aster 15/30 anti-air missiles, MU90 antisubmarine torpedoes, artillery), the FDI is able to embark simultaneously a helicopter and an unmanned aerial vehicle(UAV) . She can also receive a Special Forces detachment with their two commando boats. The FDI will be the first French frigate natively protected against cyber threats, with a Data Centre accommodating a great part of the ship applications. The FDI introduces the concept of a dedicated system for asymmetric threats warfare, distinct from the operation room. Located behind the bridge, it will lead asymmetrical warfare against air and surface threats such as mini-UAVs or tricked boats. The FDIwhich gathers the best of French technology in a compact platform. She is a powerful and innovative frigate, designed for facing evolving threats. The design and production of the FDI build onthe experience of the FREMM program: Naval Group benefits from the operational feedback given by the French Navy. Key figures: &ndash; Displacement: 4,500 tons class &ndash; Length: 122 meters &ndash; Beam: 18 meters &ndash; Max. speed: 27 knots &ndash; Autonomy: 45 days &ndash; Accomodation: 125 + 28 passengers A large-scale industrial collaboration that particularly mobilises the Naval Group site of Lorient Five defence and intervention frigates (FDI) have been ordered in April 2017 by the Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA) to the benefit of the French Navy. The build of the first of class represents around one million hours of work for the teams of the Naval Group' site of Lorient. Furthermore, it contributes to the economic development of its suppliers and subcontractors, to local employment around Lorient but also to the other Naval Group sites that brought their specific know-how to the program. The conception and development studies also represent around one million hours of work for the entire series. Industrial key figures: &ndash; A 100% digital conception &ndash; zero paper plans &ndash; 1 million hours of production work for each unit of the series on the Naval Group' site of Lorient &ndash; 1 million hours of conception and development for the program &ndash; 400 subcontractors &ndash; 20 km of tubes and 300 km of cables for each FDI Many export opportunities The future frigate targets the intermediary tonnage ships segment for which there is an international demand. Thanks to its modularity, the ship can be configured to fulfil diverse missions depending on the expressed needs. Thus, with on the one hand the Gowind 2,500- tonnes corvette, on the other hand the 6,000-tonnes FREMM and now the FDI, Naval Group proposes a complete offer for strongly armed military ships. A Letter of Intention was signed on the 10th of October 2019 by the Greek Minister of Defence, Nicolaos Panagiotopoulos and the French Minister for Armed Forces, Florence Parly. This announcement is in line with the strategic cooperation between the two countries and will allow a close dialogue in order to bring the best answer to the needs of the Hellenic Navy Contact presse : Emmanuel GAUDEZ Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 59 55 69 Mob. : +33 (0)6 61 97 36 63 emmanuel.gaudez@naval-group.com Bérengère GOURAUD Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 59 56 44 Mob. : +33 (0)7 76 86 53 79 berengere.gouraud@naval-group.com Klara NADARADJANE Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 59 51 16 Mob. : +33 (0)6 45 03 11 92 priya-klara.nadaradjane@naval-group.com View source version on Naval Group: https://www.naval-group.com/en/news/naval-group-launches-the-construction-of-the-first-digital-frigate-for-the-french-navy/

Toutes les nouvelles