Defense bill for 2025 would delay F-35 deliveries

Sur le même sujet

• 

  6 novembre 2020 | International, Naval

  US Navy inks $9.4B contract for two Columbia-class nuclear missile submarines

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy announced Thursday it had inked a $9.47 billion contract with builder General Dynamics Electric Boat for the full construction cost of the lead boat of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, as well as advanced procurement money for the second boat, the future USS Wisconsin. The announcement marks the end of the beginning for the Columbia class, which the Navy has for years said is its top priority. The 12-ship class will replace the retiring Ohio-class submarines. The Columbia is slated to make its first patrol in 2031, and the Navy says it must meet the timeline to maintain continuous sea-based deterrent patrols. The contract also covers continued component testing and engineering, according to the DoD contract announcement. “The contract modification exercises an option for construction and test of the lead and second ships of the Columbia class SSBN 826 and SSBN 827, as well as associated design and engineering support,” the contract reads. From here on out, the program is about getting things in order to prepare for full production in the second half of the 2020s, when the Navy plans to buy one per year, the service's top acquisition official told reporters Thursday. “Now it's really about execution,” said James Geurts, the Navy's head of research, development and acquisition. "It's making sure that now, with the contract in place, transitioning into full construction. ... “The design, maturity of this program surpasses any other submarine we have ever done. We've got a solid design. Now it's moving to design refinement to design complete, and advanced construction into full construction for the first ship. And then not taking our eye off the ball of the fact that we will quickly move into, by the third, annual construction.” Getting the first ship right will be key, Geurts continued. “There's a whole lot of effort to get the first ship out, and get the first ship out right,” he said. “That's necessary, but not sufficient. We've got to make sure the enterprise is ready to execute the full scope of the program so that we can meet the requirements for the nation.” The second hull is fully priced into the contract, Navy officials said on the call, meaning that when the Navy wants to exercise the option planned for 2024, it will not have to renegotiate for the cost of full construction. The Columbia program is a massively expensive undertaking, with the Navy estimating it will run about $7.5 billion per hull over the class. By 2026, when the Navy will be buying one Columbia per year, considering the FY21′s roughly $20 billion shipbuilding request as a guide, Columbia would eat up to 38 percent of the Navy's shipbuilding money at a time when DoD believes the Navy needs to expand the fleet to meet a rising Chinese naval threat. In January, the cost of Columbia drew a blunt assessment from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, who said if the Navy is going to expand, it needs more cash. “Here's the deal, we need more money,” Gilday said. "We need more top line. “If you believe that we require overmatch in the maritime domain, if you believe that in order to execute distributed maritime operations and to operate forward in numbers now that we need more iron, then, yes, we need more top line.” Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who represents the district where GDEB is located, said the contract was a victory for the submarine industrial base, which has been under enormous strain as the Navy ramps up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year and the Columbia class. “This isn't just a milestone for the shipbuilders at EB — the Columbia-class program will also be a major opportunity for industry partners up and down the supply chain for years to come, and a foundational piece for our region's economic future,” Courtney said. "Generations of shipbuilders and manufacturers will get their start working on this multi-decade program, and it's an exciting time to get more people into the pipeline for the jobs and opportunities that will come with the start of this effort.: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/05/navy-inks-contract-for-two-columbia-class-nuclear-missile-submarines

• 

  4 février 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Germany officially knocks F-35 out of competition to replace Tornado

  By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany ― Germany's Ministry of Defence has officially ruled out the F-35 joint strike fighter as a choice to replace its aging Tornado fleet, Defense News has learned. An official from the ministry confirmed that the F-35 is not a finalist in the competition, which seeks a replacement for the 90-jet fleet. The news was first reported by German site AugenGeradeaus. The move is not altogether surprising. Berlin for some time has officially favored an upgraded version of the fourth-generation Eurofighter Typhoon, built by a consortium of Airbus, Leonardo and BAE Systems, as the Tornado replacement. The main argument is to keep European companies involved in building combat aircraft and, perhaps even more importantly, staying clear of disturbing Franco-German momentum in armaments cooperation. However, the decision leaves open the question of certification for nuclear weapons. The Typhoon is not certified to carry the American-made nuclear bombs that Germany, as part of its strategic posture, is supposed to be able to carry on its jets. Competing against the Typhoon is Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Before the German MoD confirmed that the F-35 was officially out of the running, Reuters on Thursday reported that the ministry was considering splitting the buy between the Typhoon and either the F-35 or Super Hornet. Ordering both the Typhoon and an American aircraft would make it easier to continue carrying out the NATO nuclear mission, while also lending support to the European industrial base. However, it could complicate logistics, adding more expense and forcing the German air force to maintain two supply chains. It is worth noting that despite complaints about the cost of keeping the ageing Tornados flying, keeping around a certain number of them always has been considered a painful, but not impossible, proposition among some defense experts. That is especially the case for the nuclear mission. “There does not have to be a nuclear Tornado replacement,” Karl-Heinz Kamp, president of the Federal Academy for Security Policy, a government think tank, told Defense News last August. He noted that any German government is acutely averse to the publicity surrounding Berlin's would-be atomic bombers. “That's why they will keep flying the Tornados, despite the price tag and despite having asked about a Eurofighter nuclear certification in Washington,” Kamp predicted at the time. German defense officials on Thursday evening stressed that no decisions had been made besides reducing the playing field to the FA-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Defense Ministry will request additional information from the respective manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, on the issues of operations, economic viability and timing, these officials said. Germany's decision appears to have come at the surprise of F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin, which was not told by the ministry of the imminent announcement. “We have not been officially notified of a decision on Germany's future fighter,” Lockheed spokesman Mike Friedman said in an emailed response to a query. “The F-35 delivers unmatched value as the most capable and lowest life-cycle cost aircraft, while delivering the strongest long-term industrial and economic opportunities compared to any fighter on the market. As the foundation of NATO's next generation of air power, the F-35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world today, and includes Electronic Attack capabilities well beyond any specialized fourth generation aircraft.” Valerie Insinna in Washington contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/31/germany-officially-knocks-f-35-out-of-competition-to-replace-tornado/

• 

  11 juin 2018 | International, Terrestre

  Marines want a better way do force-on-force tactical shooting training

  After decades of using laser-type devices for shooting simulations and force-on-force tactical warfighting, the Marine Corps is asking for a new way to do fake shooting. A recent request for information is asking the commercial industry to bring ideas to the Corps that would help it make simulated shooting more realistic for up to a battalion-size force and improve current systems. Some versions of those systems have been in operation since Nintendo's Duck Hunt video game was considered high-tech shooting and laser tag advertisements dominated Saturday morning cartoons. This won't hit every Marine Corps installation but many will have it. Based on the RFI, the systems would be employed “to provide turnkey instrumented exercises with After Action Review (AAR) at 29 Palms, Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, MCB Hawaii, MCB Okinawa or MCB Quantico within 3 weeks of notice, as well as support additional exercises upon request at Camp Fuji, Japan, Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Center, MCB Yuma, and specified reserve locations.” And the Marines are not doing this alone. They will be leveraging the Army's Live Training Engagement Component software. That's a tactical training framework so that simulations can be on the same standards and work jointly with other services and potentially foreign partners. One of the key cross functional teams that the Army formed last year included simulated training environment work. The goal is to incorporate better simulations for training at all levels, beginning in the design and procurement of future weapons and other equipment systems. The Corps wants a system that would be able to simulate all weapons and vehicles typically seen in a battalion, which would include at least: M4/M16; M9 or sidearm, the M27 Infantry Automatic Weapon; hand grenades; rocket propelled grenades; Light Anti-Tank Weapon; 60mm mortars; 81mm mortars; Claymore antipersonnel mine; Mk-19 grenade launcher; Russian machine gun; AK-47 variants; M41 TOW; Javelin missile and the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle. It would distinguish between a hit, wound or miss and record information for after-action reviews. Marine Corps Times first reported news of this initiative last year following an interview with then-program manager for Training Systems at Marine Corps Systems Command, Col. Walt Yates. At the time, Yates described some of the shortfalls of using lasers when gauging accuracy and real-world effects. “A laser is at the speed of light, and the bullet is not,” he said. Yates previously said that though the current shooting systems are a generational change from old MILES, or multiple integrated laser engagement system, lasers have fundamental flaws for realistic battle scenarios. For example, laser-based systems shoot line-of-sight, making arcing weapons such as mortars and grenade launchers more difficult to simulate. Lasers can also be deflected by light concealment such as tree leaves and thin walls. And the number of troops and shooting ranges will change with new systems. The first generation ITESS accommodated 120 Marines and opposition forces, the second generation expanded to 1,500 with a communication radius of 5 to 8 km. The third seeks to track up to 2,500 Marines, making it capable of battalion on battalion exercises envisioned by the commandant, Yates said in the November interview. A new simulator must act more like a real bullet, requiring Marines to lead their moving targets, fire rifles on semi, burst and fully automatic modes and ensure the bullet travels in the realistic path, which is not perfectly line of sight, he said. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/06/04/marines-want-a-better-way-do-force-on-force-tactical-shooting-training/