2 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial
By: Steven P. Bucci
Last month, Congress held an oversight and accountability hearing regarding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's burdensome logistical IT system. The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General reported earlier this year that millions of additional dollars were spent in the form of labor hours by military personnel who manually tracked the plane's spare parts since its electronic logistical system didn't. The congressional review was undoubtedly warranted, especially as the F-35 program office phases in a newer system over the next two years to replace its legacy IT platform.
But noticeably absent from this testimony, was a more fulsome discussion (and understanding) about the affordability of the program and how both acquisition costs and the price to fly the aircraft are significantly trending downward at a time that matters most.
In an era of increased military competition against peer adversaries and during a period of tremendous budgetary constraints in the United States, incremental savings across a large enterprise such as the F-35 program matter. The Defense Department understands this well. It has smartly leveraged its buying power, driving down the cost of each F-35A to approximately $80 million one year earlier than planned — now costing taxpayers less than some of the less capable fourth-generation aircraft, and on a par with others. The F-15EX, for example, costs nearly $88 million, and gives our forces no help in a fifth-gen fight.
Why spend more for less? This is critical because over the next five years, the number of F-35s purchased will more than double to approximately 1,200 aircraft. That translates to increased capacity and capability for the United States and its allies as they operate in the Indo-Pacific and European theaters.
Congress recognizes that the costs to acquire the aircraft have been significantly reduced, and it has now rightfully turned its attention to the costs associated with sustaining the aircraft. But most lawmakers missed the opportunity during July's hearing to more fully explore a key statement made by the F-35′s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed announced that it has reduced its share of the aircraft's sustainability cost per flying hour over the past five years by nearly 40 percent, plummeting the costs to fly the aircraft to nearly $5,000 less each hour than earlier hourly costs.
The company says it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build state-of-the-art tools, analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence, which has led to labor efficiency gains as well as improvements to supply response times and data quality. The company implemented robust asset management tools and robotic automation to eliminate manual tasks, while placing a concerted focus on improving the reliability of aircraft parts to meaningfully reduce future repair requirements and material costs.
This is significant because the number of hours flown each year will increase by approximately 140,000 hours over the next five years alone. Those savings add up.
And more can be done. The F-35′s manufacturer believes it can further drive down its cost share to fly the aircraft by approximately an additional 50 percent. This is all the more significant when considering that the military services and aircraft's engine maker, Pratt & Whitney, are responsible for more than one-half of the total sustainment costs of the program.
If a similar level of savings can be achieved by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Pratt & Whitney, those savings can be confidently reinvested back into the program to ensure enough aircraft are being procured to deter and, if necessary, fight our adversaries. As the military services and foreign countries consider future threats and the capabilities needed to impede adventuresome opponents, these savings matter.
These savings come at the same time the DoD reports that the aircraft's mission-capable rate has increased from the mid-50th percentile to the low 70th percentile from just a couple of years ago. And further improvements in the aircraft's mission-capable rate should be forthcoming as repair backlogs and mismatched spare parts are corrected by a new IT logistical system.
A theoretical military principle suggests that steady quantitative changes can lead to a sudden, qualitative leap. After many, many years of sustained focus to drive down F-35 costs, the program may be representative of that maxim and allow the Defense Department to fully realize the advantages of the F-35′s gamechanging technologies.
Steven P. Bucci is a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He previously served as a U.S. Army Special Forces officer and is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense. The Heritage Foundation takes no funding from any government. It does take donations from corporate entities, which average about 4 percent of their total funding in any given year. The think tank reports it does not take a position based on donations, nor do donors have editorial input..
28 juillet 2022 | International, Aérospatial
HAL is exploring export opportunities for the HTT-40 basic trainer with Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates.
8 mai 2020 | International, Naval
By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — Britain is set to restart a competition later this year to build up to three large logistics ships to support deployment of the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier fleet, having suspended the procurement effort last year. Ministry of Defence officials are refusing to give an exact date for the restart, despite Defence Secretary Ben Wallace recently telling the parliamentary Defence Committee that he thought it would take place in September. “It will be, I think, in September, but I can correct that if I am wrong. We are hopefully going to reissue the competition sooner rather than later,” he told lawmakers. A Defence Committee spokeswomen said the panel is still waiting on a concrete date from the MoD. “Following the session with the secretary of state for defense, Ben Wallace, the committee wrote to the department asking for clarification on a number of issues, including the timing of the Fleet Solid Support program. The committee has not yet heard back from the Ministry of Defence,” she said. The competition to build up to three 40,000-ton vessels in a requirement known locally as the Fleet Solid Support program was expected to have been worth as much as £1.5 billion (U.S. $1.9 billion) at the time the competition was unexpectedly terminated Nov. 5. The MoD said at the time that it took the action due to a failure to find a value-for-money solution in negotiations with shipbuilders. In his evidence to the committee, Wallace described the program as “ effectively delinquent.” The warships, which will be operated by the Royal Navy's logistics supplier, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, are a key element of Britain's plan to replace aging Fort-class ships with modern support ships to supply ammunition, dry stores and spares to aircraft carrier strike groups and other maritime task groups. The program had been mired in controversy since the Conservative government opted to open the design to international competition, rather that adopt a “Buy British” policy. The move caused an outcry from politicians, industry and unions who believed naval logistics vessels should be included in the list of warships, like frigates and destroyers, that are off limits to foreign shipbuilders. Ministers and procurement officials argued they had no choice but to follow European Union competition rules, which say logistics ships are not warships and are therefore subject to regulations requiring open competition. Critics pointed out that other European Union member states have previously blocked foreign bids for similar ships. Industry executives suspected the the cash-strapped MoD was running an open competition to keep the procurement cost to a minimum, following in the example of its purchase of four new fleet oilers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary built by South Korea's Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering. The U.K. has now left the European Union but is in a transitory period where trade rules still apply. That period is currently set to end Dec. 31. The MoD declined to answer Defense News' question on whether the new competition will be held under EU rules, or whether the U.K. will exempt itself from the rule, opening up the possibility for a British-only bid. Defence Procurement Minister James Heappey told Parliament this year that the MoD is reviewing the procurement strategy, the requirements and the schedule ahead of the competition restart. MoD officials said this week that the review is still underway. Defense consultant Howard Wheeldon of Wheeldon Strategic Advisory said with the new coronavirus taking its toll on the country's economy, there should be no question that the procurement is limited to local business. “Having pulled the plug on the original plan, and with potential new U.K. players back in the fray, such as Harland and Wolff, the MoD would risk a very damaging backlash if it tried to do another foreign deal — and rightly so,” he said. “Buying on the basis of lowest cost is rarely the right solution for defense equipment procurement. The new world order that I see emerging elsewhere allows freedom to put national interests first. Thus for the U.K., the right decision on future solid support ships is that these vessels should be British-designed and -built.” What about the original competition? The MoD brought the original competition to a close on the eve of the Conservative government calling a general election for Dec. 12, 2019. Campaigners took that as a sign the government was moving toward a “Buy British” policy. Their position was reinforced last autumn when the MoD published an updated, independent review of the nation's national shipbuilding strategy, which advocated for a policy change that would see logistics ships and other types of vessels added to the list warships closed to foreign bids. The review, conducted by former shipbuilding chief executive John Parker, said Britain was not currently adopting “the right strategic approach” in allowing ships like the fleet solid support vessels to be built overseas. By the time the MoD suspended the competition, two of the five short-listed bidders remained: Navantia of Spain; and Team UK, a consortium of BAE Systems, Babcock International, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce. A BAE Systems spokesperson told Defense News on Wednesday that the company is waiting for the MoD to show its hand on the procurement process, and in the meantime remains focused on its commitment to build Type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy. “We are engaged with our U.K. partners and await guidance from the MoD on next steps in the procurement process for the Fleet Solid Support program. We have a long-term commitment to shipbuilding in the U.K. with continuity of production in Glasgow through into the 2030s, and we are focused on delivering our existing commitments,” the spokesperson said. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/05/07/britain-to-restart-competition-for-fleet-solid-support-ships-but-whos-allowed-to-bid/
23 mars 2022 | International, Terrestre
Hanwha is offering its K9A2 howitzer for the British effort likely to attract competition from several rivals.