14 mai 2020 | International, Naval

DoD asks Congress for a two-sub Columbia-class buy

By: , , and

WASHINGTON ― The Pentagon is asking Congress for authority to buy two of its new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, a potential mega-deal worth as much as $17.7 billion with far-reaching implications for the ailing submarine industrial base.

If approved, the proposal would potentially lower the price by promising General Dynamics a steady stream of work at its shipyard as the Pentagon and its network of suppliers grapple with COVID-19's economic shocks. General Dynamics and the Navy have been negotiating the terms of a two-ship purchase, but nothing can be finalized until Congress authorizes the block buy.

As the House and Senate Armed Services committees ready their drafts of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, it's customary for the Defense Department to send legislative proposals for the annual policy bill. It was unclear how Congress will ultimately react to this one, but at least one key lawmaker would “seriously consider” the proposal.

Senate Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee Chairman David Perdue, R-Ga., “certainly supports and has been working toward better business practices in the Department of Defense. He would seriously consider any proposal that achieves cost savings or increases efficiency,” said his spokesperson, Jenni Sweat.

The Columbia-class program is meant to design and build 12 new ballistic missile submarines to replace the Navy's current force of 14 aging Ohio-class boats. The president's budget estimated the cost of the lead Columbia-class sub at $14 billion, the second at $9.3 billion, and total procurement costs for all 12 at $110 billion.

The Navy wants to procure the first Columbia-class boat in fiscal 2021, the second in fiscal 2024, and the remaining 10 at a rate of one per year from 2026 through 2035. The Navy has already spent about $6.2 billion in advanced procurement for the Columbia, which leaves about $8.2 billion remaining for the first boat.

A summary of its new legislative proposal, obtained by Defense News, said the move is intended to “permit the Navy to enter into one block buy contract for up to two Columbia-class submarines (SSBN 826 and SSBN 827), providing industrial base stability, production efficiencies, and cost savings when compared to an annual procurement with options cost estimate.”

Complicating matters is the potential for the coronavirus pandemic to create construction or funding issues that delay SSBN 826's first scheduled patrol in 2031, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. To boot, it was unclear whether the Navy had accurately projected costs or whether stable funding would be available across the Navy's procurement portfolio.

The Navy is confident the program is on track and negotiations are ongoing in line with what the Navy has previously disclosed, said Capt. Danny Hernandez, spokesman for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition.

“The Columbia program is on track, it is our top acquisition priority,” Hernandez said in an email. "Per the Navy's Budget Submission, the Navy plans to award a contract modification for construction of the first two Columbia-Class ships as a priced option in FY20.

"Formal option exercise and SSBN 826 construction start are planned for October 2020, following required Congressional authorizations and appropriation of funds.”

This week, the Navy and General Dynamics were still negotiating on the terms of the two-ship buy, but what the ultimate savings would be for contracting for two together was not clear yet, according to a source familiar with the talks. No final deal can be negotiated until Congress has authorized the contract.

Also unclear is how perturbations in the system from the COVID-19 outbreak might impact the supply and labor system, the source said.

Indeed, the potential impact of COVID-19 on an already stressed submarine industrial base is one reason the strategy could be important, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer a senior fellow at the Conservative Hudson Institute think tank.

“There has already been advanced procurement money provided by Congress that has been used to build missile tubes, nuclear reactors and propulsion plants,” Clark said. "But there is a bunch of other equipment on the ship that you would like to buy in quantities: Pumps, valves, fans, a lot of habitability systems.

“If you double the number of ships, you double the number that you buy and maybe you reduce your costs, but more importantly you support your industrial base.”

To date, disruptions to the submarine supplier base and the Electric Boat shipyard have been comparatively mild, two sources familiar with the situation said.

General Dynamics is interested in locking in a larger block buy for the remaining ten boats, and a source familiar with the company's thinking said the precise savings would be clear once the company gets further along with construction of the first boat. The third ship will officially be procured in 2026, so it gives the parties time to understand the program better.

The Navy has been public about its desire to buy the first two submarines as a block but given that it's a new start program, that seemed premature, said Project On Government Oversight military analyst Dan Grazier. He noted that a multi-year procurement, under the law, would require a stable design, while a block buy would not.

“The Navy claims the Columbia's design is much further along in the process than the Ohio was at this point, but the Navy's track record of designing and building ships recently is quite poor," Grazier said.

"The Zumwalts, LCSs, and the Ford-class ships were designed using similar methods and the results have proven to be both costly and disappointing. It would be better to build the first boat and make sure the design actually works as intended because if it doesn't, then the money we save now will actually cost us much more in the future.”

Clark, on the other hand, argued that while early multi-ship buys on new classes of ships are usually a bad idea, Columbia might be a special case where the risks associated with early block buys are sufficiently offset.

“You wouldn't want to do a block buy if you thought the design was going to change significantly, as in you were going to buy one or two hulls and then revise it based on the results of testing or production issues,” Clark said. “On this one, more of the design is more complete so they are confident it is mature.

"And with the experience General Dynamics has with submarine construction, they are confident in their path to build it without significant design changes.”

The Navy is aiming to have more than 80 percent of the Columbia's design complete prior to construction starting later this Fall, double where they were at the start of construction on the lead boat of the Virginia class.

The Columbia class is not the only big-ticket weapons program where the Pentagon is seeking latitude from Congress in pursuit of savings. For the Lockheed-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, DoD has separately proposed to use department funds to again bulk buy F-35 components ― “material and equipment” in “economic order quantities,” the proposal synopsis says ― for Lot 15 in fiscal 2021 through Lot 17 in 2023.

Lawmakers have historically been supportive of such moves, and Congress authorized the purchase of F-35 economic order quantity buys in the fiscal 2020 defense policy bill.

In October, the Defense Department and Lockheed finalized a deal for F-35 lots 12, 13 and 14, but the order is structured so that lot 13 and 14 fall under separate contract options, differentiating it from a block buy.

Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the government, has said that arrangement would likely continue over the next several production lots.

"To date, we are pursuing a base-plus-options production contract vehicle for [lots] 15 to 17,” Fick said in March at the McAleese and Associates conference. “The business case that supports a three year multi year has not been there. We have not seen from Lockheed a business case that merits tying up three years of appropriated funds.”

Clarification: The story has been updated to clarify the specific transaction for which the Navy is seeking authority from Congress.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/13/dod-asks-congress-for-columbia-submarine-block-buy/

Sur le même sujet

  • DISA releases final solicitation for $11 billion IT contract

    10 décembre 2020 | International, C4ISR

    DISA releases final solicitation for $11 billion IT contract

    Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S Defense Information Systems Agency released its final solicitation for a highly anticipated IT consolidation contract that is potentially worth billions of dollars. The Defense Enclave Services contract, potentially worth up to about $11.7 billion over a decade, will consolidate the IT systems of Pentagon's Fourth Estate agencies, which handle business tasks and don't sit under a military department. The award will go to a single provider and is an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract. The contract, released Tuesday, stems from a 2019 policy that established DISA as the single IT service provider for fourth estate agencies. The company that wins the contract will unify the common-use IT systems and provide “integrated, standardized and cost-effective IT services, while improving security, network availability and reliability for 22 DAFAs within the Fourth Estate,” the RFP description states. “The DES effort will establish the modern infrastructure foundation and united frame of thought needed to deliver cohesive combat support capabilities to the war fighter,” it says. DISA expects to award the contract in the first quarter of fiscal 2022. RFP responses are due Feb. 8. The agency originally slated the RFP for release at the end of September, but it was delayed several months due a final review by DoD CIO Dana Deasy. At a media roundtable last week, Danielle Metz, acting deputy CIO for information enterprise, said the review was normal procedure. “This is an incredibly important endeavor that we are embarking on,” Metz said. “It is one of the crown jewels that we have as part of our IT reform initiative under the [National Defense Strategy], and so we thought that a little bit more due diligence was important to make sure that we were doing what was right for the department.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/disa/2020/12/09/disa-releases-final-solicitation-for-11-billion-it-contract

  • «Le fonds européen de défense: quelles perspectives?». La tribune libre de Bruno Alomar

    31 mai 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

    «Le fonds européen de défense: quelles perspectives?». La tribune libre de Bruno Alomar

    Bruno Alomar Se profile désormais la création d'un Fonds européen de défense de 13 milliards d'euros en capacité initiale, pour lequel le Parlement européen s'est solennellement prononcé en avril, et qui devrait être confirmé lors de l'adoption des prochaines perspectives financières 2021-2027 Parent pauvre de la construction européenne depuis l'échec de la Communauté européenne de défense (CED) en 1954, le projet d'Europe de la défense a connu, au moins dans les intentions, une accélération spectaculaire au cours des deux dernières années. Se est ainsi succédé la création en décembre 2017 d'une Coopération structurée permanente (CSP) regroupant 25 Etats, puis l'Initiative européenne d'intervention (IEI) en juin 2018. Se profile désormais la création d'un Fonds européen de défense de 13 milliards d'euros en capacité initiale (devant monter in fine à 20 milliards), pour lequel le Parlement européen s'est solennellement prononcé en avril, et qui devrait être confirmé lors de l'adoption des prochaines perspectives financières 2021-2027. La prochaine Commission européenne, pourrait même voir la création d'un poste de Commissaire européen à la défense, avec une Direction générale dédiée. Disons-le tout net : il n'est que temps que les Européens, adeptes du « doux commerce » et du soft power, prennent conscience de la dangerosité du monde et de leur fragilité dans le domaine militaire ! Il n'est que temps de dissiper l'illusion qui a prévalu depuis 1989, celle des « dividendes de la paix », d'un monde irénique structuré autour des seules questions économiques. Pourtant, alors que dans les mots l'idée d'une Europe de la défense progresse, d'autres mots indiquent d'autres réalités. Ainsi, les Sous-secrétaires d'Etat américains à la défense, Ellen Lord, et au département d'Etat, Andrea Thompson, ont adressé une lettre au Haut Représentant de l'Union européenne, Mme Mogherini, en date du 1er mai, qui ne déguise par le mépris dans lequel l'Amérique tient les timides efforts européens en la matière. Dans cette lettre, les autorités américaines rappellent que si la création d'un Fonds européen de défense est de la responsabilité des Européens, il va de soi que ceci ne saurait compromettre les relations qui existent au sein de l'OTAN. Le tropisme américain, Donald Trump n'ayant rien inventé si ce n'est une brutalité inédite sur la forme, demeure : « Européens, si vous voulez être protégés, achetez américain ; sinon gare ! » Sécurité. Rien de nouveau dira-t-on : hormis le Royaume-Uni et la France, puissances nucléaires indépendantes, tous les autres pays européens sont redevables à l'Amérique pour leur sécurité. C'est bien la raison pour laquelle ces Etats se fournissent avec zèle en matériel militaire américain, le dernier exemple en date étant le choix du F 35 par la très europhile Belgique, destinés d'ailleurs à remplacer les F-16 américains. C'est, plus encore, l'une des raisons essentielles pour lesquelles, face à une Russie redevenue menaçante, les pays scandinaves et baltes, avec le soutien silencieux de Berlin, mettent systématiquement en échec toute perspective d'approfondissement de l'Union européenne ou d'inflexion commerciale qui pourrait indisposer Washington. Dans un tel contexte, qu'il soit tout de même permis de formuler quelques orientations pour le futur Fonds européen de défense. Car, au-delà des intentions, c'est dans le détail que son succès au service de la sécurité des européens se jouera. Premièrement, la préférence européenne. N'en déplaise à nos alliés américains, si les européens, auxquels Washington reproche tant – à juste titre – de consacrer insuffisamment de ressources à leur défense, mobilisent des fonds, ceux-ci doivent à l'évidence être entièrement consacrés à la fortification d'une base industrielle et technologique de défense (BITD) européenne, d'autant plus fragile qu'elle est sous pression des industriels américains. Le programme F-35 a d'ailleurs réussi son pari industriel : assécher la R&D des entreprises européennes partenaires comme BAE ou Leonardo. C'est non seulement une question de crédibilité militaire pour les Européens. C'est aussi, si l'on tient compte du rôle essentiel des industries de défense en matière d'innovation au service de toute l'économie, une condition essentielle de restauration de leur base industrielle et de renforcement de leur compétitivité, le tout sur fond de rachat forcené de certains acteurs par leurs concurrents américains (Santa Barbara, Mowag, etc.). Deuxièmement, au moment où les conditions exactes de création et de gestion du Fonds sont débattues, il est essentiel, dans l'intérêt des Européens, de fixer clairement les responsabilités de chacun. Aux instances européennes de centraliser les projets, d'en évaluer l'intérêt, et d'apporter une « plus-value » communautaire. Ensuite, ce sont les Etats, et les Etats seuls, qui doivent gérer les fonds dégagés en coopération avec industriels. Mais rien ne serait pire que les institutions européennes, dont l'ADN est le libre marché et la compétence en matière de défense inexistante, prétendent se substituer au choix et à la décision finale des Etats membres, seuls comptables de leur souveraineté devant leur peuple. Bruno Alomar, auditeur de la 68 em session « politique de défense » de l'iHEDN et de la 25 em promotion de l'Ecole de Guerre. https://www.lopinion.fr/edition/international/fonds-europeen-defense-quelles-perspectives-tribune-libre-bruno-alomar-188032

  • Czech Republic to boost spending on land weapons in 2019

    28 novembre 2018 | International, Terrestre

    Czech Republic to boost spending on land weapons in 2019

    By: Jarosław Adamowski WARSAW, Poland — Czech Defence Minister Lubomir Metnar has announced the ministry's acquisition plans for 2019. Next year, the country aims to purchase 210 infantry fighting vehicles, multi-purpose helicopters, and mobile air defense radars (MADRs), among other systems. Metnar said that in 2018 the ministry managed to conclude deals to purchase weapons and military equipment worth more than 14.5 billion koruna (US $635 million). There is a consensus across the country's political spectrum that the country's defense spending must be further increased in the coming years, the minister said, as reported by local daily Denik. The planned acquisitions are largely focused on replacing the military's Soviet-designed gear with new equipment made by Western allies and Czech manufacturers. The region-wide trend has accelerated following Russia's military intervention in eastern Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. Ales Opata, the Chief of the General Staff of the Czech Armed Forces, said at a joint press conference with Metnar that the key to military modernization was the upgrade of the country's land forces. “I don't only mean [acquisitions of] tanks or infantry fighting vehicles, but also robot systems, reconnaissance and combat unmanned vehicles,” Opata said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/11/21/czech-republic-to-boost-spending-on-land-weapons-in-2019

Toutes les nouvelles