FLIR Awarded $92.9 Million Contract for Logistics Support to U.S. Army Product Manager Force Protection Systems

Sur le même sujet

• 

  4 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Dispute Not Stalling F-35 Testing System, Lockheed Martin Says

  By Bill Carey ORLANDO, Florida—A legal dispute between Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government that held up development of a key F-35 testing system is not further delaying the effort, says the manufacturer, which is awaiting a verdict by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). Lockheed Martin has delivered its products to the Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) to build the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE), including an “F-35 In a Box” software module that replicates the fighter's mission systems for testing purposes. The software module contains nine algorithms that the manufacturer claims as intellectual property (IP), which the government disputes. The Pentagon is relying on activation of the JSE, a high-fidelity modeling and simulation environment, to complete mission testing required for the F-35's initial operational test and evaluation phase and a full-rate production decision. But the dispute over intellectual property rights has delayed the JSE by 2 1/2 years, according to acquisition executives. The JSE was supposed to begin operating in late 2017 but now is scheduled to achieve the first-use milestone in July 2020, Robert Behler, Pentagon director of Operational Test and Evaluation, told lawmakers during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last month. During a briefing Dec. 3 at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, Chauncey McIntosh, Lockheed Martin vice president for F-35 training and logistics, said the IP dispute is not holding back Navair's development of the JSE. “Lockheed Martin has delivered all of its products to the Navair team,” including the F-35 In a Box module, McIntosh said. “The JSE team is currently integrating that product along with the other products that they're fielding. There is no dispute that is preventing development of the Joint Simulation Environment for Navair.” When a Defense Contracts Audit Agency review found no proof of Lockheed Martin's IP claim, the manufacturer appealed to the ASBCA. It continues to await a decision. “We are supporting that appeal and [will] progress from there based on what happens with the appeal,” McIntosh said. Also testifying before the House Armed Services subcommittee on Nov. 13, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, F-35 program executive officer, said the program moved forward with the JSE despite the legal dispute. “That slowed our progress in getting started and slowed our early progress once we had begun,” Fick told lawmakers. “In order to get on contract, in order to start moving forward, we had to sign up to accept less than government purpose rights, but reserved the right to challenge that intellectual property assertion.” While Navair is developing the JSE at its headquarters at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland, the U.S. Air Force announced in January that it was building complementary JSE facilities at Edwards AFB, California, and Nellis AFB, Nevada. Plans call for breaking ground on both facilities next May. https://aviationweek.com/defense/dispute-not-stalling-f-35-testing-system-lockheed-martin-says

• 

  11 décembre 2020 | International, C4ISR

  L3Harris Technologies awarded third LRIP order on US Army’s two-channel leader radio contract

  Rochester, N.Y. — December 9, 2020 - L3Harris Technologies (NYSE:LHX) has received a $57 million competitive award for its Falcon IV® AN/PRC-163 two-channel handheld radios, along with related equipment and services, as part of the U.S. Army's two-channel Leader radio IDIQ contract. Delivery is expected to begin in early 2021. The versatile AN/PRC-163 enables warfighters to share information up and down the chain of command, integrating voice and data across the Army's Integrated Tactical Network (ITN). The radio enables robust command and control by integrating seamlessly into soldier systems such as the Army's Nett Warrior and Enhanced Night Vision Goggle – Binocular (ENVG-B) programs. A key component of the ITN, the AN/PRC-163 delivers advanced networking and wideband and narrowband satellite communications in a compact form factor. It can simultaneously communicate over multiple channels and crossband between them, offering up and down echelon connectivity. It is capable of satellite communications, mobile ad-hoc networking (MANET) waveforms and the Army's SINCGARS waveform. It also offers a path to future software-only updates for SATCOM, SATURN and other anti-jam and resilient waveforms. “The AN/PRC-163 is the most capable handheld radio in the market. It provides warfighters with a broad range of secure interoperable communications capabilities today and the ability to host resilient waveforms required to address evolving future requirements,” said Dana Mehnert, President, Communication Systems, L3Harris. This is the third Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) order for L3Harris after two previous delivery orders on this contract. The IDIQ contract includes a 5-year base and an additional 5-year option, with a ceiling of $3.9 billion. The Army expects to purchase approximately 100,000 two-channel Leader Radios under the IDIQ. The award further extends L3Harris' leadership in software-defined tactical communications and builds upon the company's proven ability to engineer and deliver advanced two-channel handheld, manpack and vehicular radios. L3Harris previously was awarded contracts by the U.S. Special Operations Command for next-generation handheld and manpack radios and was awarded a position on the Army's HMS Manpack IDIQ for its two-channel AN/PRC-158 manpack radio. About L3Harris Technologies L3Harris Technologies is an agile global aerospace and defense technology innovator, delivering end-to-end solutions that meet customers' mission-critical needs. The company provides advanced defense and commercial technologies across air, land, sea, space and cyber domains. L3Harris has approximately $18 billion in annual revenue and 48,000 employees, with customers in more than 100 countries. L3Harris.com. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements that reflect management's current expectations, assumptions and estimates of future performance and economic conditions. Such statements are made in reliance upon the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results and future trends to differ materially from those matters expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements. Statements about the value or expected value of orders, contracts or programs, about system or technology capabilities or about an expected number of radios to be purchased are forward-looking and involve risks and uncertainties. L3Harris disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. View source version on L3Harris Technologies: https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/press-release/2020/12/l3harris-technologies-awarded-third-lrip-order-us-armys-two-channel

• 

  4 novembre 2019 | International, Naval

  SECNAV: Ford Issues Due To Cost Cap, Explains Timeline

  By Rich Abott | The Secretary of the Navy today said the cost cap on the first Ford-class aircraft carrier helped lead to problems resulting in delays to the advanced weapons elevators (AWEs) and explained the government's issues and changing strategy with the shipbuilder. Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer said on Wednesday at a Heritage Foundation press roundtable that the Navy and shipbuilder/AWE builder Huntington Ingalls Industries [HII] planned to build a test elevator site, similar to the electromagnetic advanced landing system (EMALS) located in Lakehurst, N.J. The Navy has used Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst to test the General Atomics advanced arresting gear (AAG) and EMALS hundreds of times before testing them on the first new carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). “Then we had the cost cap come in. And as [HII president and CEO] Mike Petters can say, you know fine, the cost cap comes in and no one builds the land site elevator. We had to cut costs somewhere. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy,” Spencer said. In February, the Navy said it would start building the AWE land-based test site, after the fact, in Philadelphia (Defense Daily, Feb. 20). Spencer said he thinks about it and wonders if anyone was expecting there to be second and third order effects of a cost cap. “You don't get anything for free and you're not going to drive quality by cost cap. We have to start thinking differently when we go to cost control.” Spencer also further illuminated the Navy's work with HII on the elevators. Last week, he strongly criticized the company after delays on the AWEs, saying the Navy's faith and confidence with HII senior management on the project were very low (Defense Daily, Oct. 25). On Monday, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts said the Navy-HII team's output on the elevators has been much better in the last few months and he was cautiously optimistic on progress of the Ford elevators (Defense Daily, Oct. 29). Spencer said in fall 2018 the Navy was finalizing the HII elevator plan. The company gave him a chart that said all 11 AWEs would be tested and certified by the end of the planned post-shakedown availability (PSA), which was then planned for July 15. He said HII management reported high confidence of this timeline while Naval Reactors told him due to throttle and bearing issues the PSA would likely be pushed into September or October, “so I had more margin there. Did I feel confident? Completely confident.” Then, in January, Spencer said he made a bet with President Trump that the AWEs would be finished with the PSA or he could be fired (Defense Daily, Jan. 8). Spencer explained this was meant to rally the shipbuilders. “What we weren't seeing down there was the spring in the step of the people on the waterfront, to be very frank with you. It was business as usual. So we said ok, here's a rally point, we're going to commit to this.” However, in May 2019 he said HII management “goes oops, here we are, elevators aren't going to be ready until the end of 2020, possibly 2021. And that's when I went, do they really know what they're doing?” Spencer called that a moment of inflection and called Thomas Fargo, chairman of the board of HII, asking if the board knew what was going on with management “because out trust and confidence on this specific project of the elevators has eroded significantly.” While Spencer said Fargo said yes, there were continued frustrations on the government side. “That's when Hondo [Geurts] and I said let's get a tiger team down there and let's take this over as the general contractor and HII can sub to us. And that's basically what's happened this last 3 months.” Spencer said he went to the president and, after explaining the situation, was told “it's a complex system, keep knocking down the dragons.” When asked if these lessons would apply to future ships, Spencer said the Navy wants to avoid a cost cap for the lead ship in a new class like upcoming guided-missile future frigate, FFG(X). “We have to have an open discussion on first of class. Now, these are proven designs so it's going to be a little different, but we are adjusting it here and there and yes we should expect some hiccups,” he continued. “Expectation management, I think, is key.” Going forward, Spencer argued perhaps the Navy should make requirements for ships more flexible. He compared the Navy's process to the airline industry, which requires an airplane that can fit a certain number of people to transport them a certain amount of miles and has few change orders, then examines the options. However, the government has shrunk the competitive base so far that contractors agree to following requirements but only if the government takes 60 to 100 percent of the risk. “In some cases, you'd love to say should we change requirements to requests? Because if in fact you're a shipbuilder, why should I definitively lock you in if you have better ideas? Where is the flow to say if you want to get here you might want to consider this, which his 80 percent of the solution versus I will drive to 100% of your solution but the cost is going to be up here?” Spencer said he understands it is difficult to change requirements because they serve a definite purpose but wondered at what cost and percent mission capability can the government make a compromise compared to the current inflexibility. Relatedly, Spencer said he has “medium confidence” that a recent $197 million reprogramming request to Congress to fund more Ford fixes will be enough, simply because “first of classes is tough.” “I'd be remiss if I said that was the last, to be very frank. I'd rather have the option to say we're going to come for more than saying no we're capped off now. I feel good on what we're finally learning on the end of this birthing process,” Spencer said. https://www.defensedaily.com/secnav-ford-issues-due-cost-cap-might-need-money/navy-usmc/