2 juillet 2019 | International, Sécurité, Autre défense

Here are the biggest weaknesses in America’s defense sector

By:

WASHINGTON — Production of a component vital to protecting American troops from chemical attacks that can't keep up with need. Key suppliers of aircraft parts that could go bankrupt at any time. A key producer of missile components that closed for two years before the Pentagon found out.

These are just some of the key findings of an annual report from the Pentagon judging the greatest risks to the defense industrial sector, underlining that while the overall defense industry continues to bring in massive profits, not all is well among the suppliers of key components that, while small pieces of larger systems, could impact America's ability to wage war.

The annual “Industrial Capabilities” report, quietly released May 13 by the Defense Department's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, found that despite total dollars spent by the department on weapons and ammunition increasing year over year since 2016, the number of vendors supplying them has decreased.

In addition, while the report found generally positive trends for the U.S. defense sector, it did warn that in certain areas, foreign weapon sales are decreasing.

For instance, the U.S. saw its market share of global naval weapon exports go from 63 percent in 2007 to just 17 percent in 2017. And from 2008-2017, two reliable buyers of U.S. defense goods — Pakistan and South Korea — saw their U.S. procurement percentages drop. Pakistan went from 31 percent to 12 percent, while South Korea went from 78 percent to 53 percent.

This is the first Industrial Capabilities report to be published since the October release of a White House-mandated study on the defense-industrial base. That study concluded, in part, that the government needs to increase use of its Defense Production Act Title III authorities, which allows the government to expend funds to support key production lines that might now otherwise survive.

The latest report says that through March 2019, seven presidential determinations were issued to address “key industrial base shortfalls in lithium sea-water batteries, alane fuel cell technology, sonobuoys production, and critical chemicals production for missiles and munitions.” However, details of those agreements, such as how much funding might go toward fixing the issues, were pushed into a nonpublic appendix.

Here are the biggest concerns, broken down by sector:

Aircraft: The report cites long product and system development timelines, high costs for development and qualification, and limits on production as broad issues in the aircraft sector. Those issues are inherent in major defense programs, but the report also calls out the aging workforce and consolidation among the industrial base, which “has expanded into the sub-tiers of the supply chain, creating additional risks for single or sole source vendors.”

As an example, the report notes there are only four suppliers with the ability to manufacture “large, complex, single-pour aluminum and magnesium sand castings” needed to make key parts of military aircraft. These four suppliers face “perpetual financial risk and experience bankruptcy threats” due to the insecure nature of Pentagon funding.

“The single qualified source for the upper, intermediate, and sump housing for a heavy-lift platform for the Marines has experienced quality issues and recently went through bankruptcy proceedings,” the report adds. “Without a qualified or alternate qualified source for these castings, the program will face delays, impeding the U.S. ability to field heavy-lift support to Marine Corps expeditionary forces.”

Finding qualified software engineers is another issue identified, with the report warning it is “increasingly difficult to hire skilled, cleared, and capable software engineers. As aircraft continue to increase in software complexity, it will become even more important for the sector to hire skilled software engineers.”

Ground systems: The report says the Pentagon's plan of incremental updates to existing systems rather than wholesale new designs has created “a generation of engineers and scientists that lack experience in conceiving, designing, and constructing new, technologically advanced combat vehicles.” But the same issues of consolidation and lack of budget stability that showed up in the aircraft sector impact the ground vehicle sector.

“Legislation and DoD industrial policy requires DoD to manufacture all large-caliber gun barrels, howitzer barrels, and mortar tubes at one organic DoD arsenal,” the report cites as an example. “There is only one production line at the arsenal for all of these items, and policy modifications to meet demand and surge from overseas have led to a lack of capacity to meet current production requirements.”

Shipbuilding sector: When it comes to maritime vessels, the “most significant risks found were a dependence on single and sole source suppliers, capacity shortfalls, a lack of competition, a lack of workforce skills, and unstable demand,” the report found.

The lack of competition goes from the highest levels, where four companies control the seven shipyards building military vessels, to the lowest components, such as “high-voltage cable, propulsor raw material, valves, and fittings.”

Workforce concerns also dominate the shipbuilding sector. The report cites statistics from the Department of Labor predicting that between 2018 and 2026, there will be a 6–17 percent decrease in U.S. jobs in occupations critical to Navy shipbuilding projects, “such as metal layout (ship-fitting), welding, and casting.” If that is not addressed, a lack of skilled workers “will significantly impact the shipbuilding industry's ability to meet the Navy's long-term demand.”

Munitions sector: A major concern in last year's annual report was the future of the U.S. munitions sector, and many of those issues remain in the 2019 version. The report identified “multiple risks and issues, including material obsolescence and lack of redundant capability, lack of visibility into sub-tier suppliers causing delays in the notification of issues, loss of design and production skill, production gaps and lack of surge capacity planning, and aging infrastructure to manufacture and test the products.”

As an example, the report points to a voltage control switch, used in ignition devices and flight termination systems for Department of Defense missiles. Several years ago, the foundry that made a key component for the switch was purchased by another foundry, which then decided to close the factory. The Pentagon was not informed until two years after the foundry was closed, at which point “it became evident that the end-of-life buy, which was designed to last from three to five years, would only last six months.”

In another case, two key chemicals in solid-fuel rocket motors became obsolete, requiring the DoD to scramble for potential replacements.

Chemical, biological and radiological sector: The chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense sector provides protection for war fighters through items like respirators, masks and vaccines. But the report found serious issues regarding the industrial base's ability to provide that capabilities, indicating that Title III authorities might be needed in the near future to maintain production.

As an example, the report points to production of ASZM‑TEDA1 impregnated carbon, a defense-unique material with only a single qualified source that, as a result, “precludes assurances for best quality and price.” The carbon is used in 72 chemical, biological and nuclear filtration systems, and the report notes that current sourcing arrangements “cannot keep pace with demand.” The DoD is already using Title III to modernize the production line and try to establish a second source for the material.

Soldier systems: The collapse of the American textile market over the last three decades has left the department depending on single sources or foreign suppliers for soldier systems. Additionally, battery production is identified as a potential future issue.

“Lack of stable production orders has resulted in lost capability and capacity, increased surge lead times, workforce erosion, and inhibited investments by remaining suppliers. Surge-capacity-limiting constraints occur at several points along the value chain, from raw material to final battery assembly,” the report says.

Space systems: Aside from major issues around future threats to space assets from near-peer competitors, the report identifies major industrial base concerns for space as including “aerospace structures and fibers, radiation-hardened microelectronics, radiation test and qualification facilities, and satellite components and assemblies.”

Other areas include solar panel development — “There is not enough space business for companies to justify R&D to improve cells without [government] help,” the report says — the erosion of the traveling-wave tube industry, and a lack of suppliers for key parts needed to produce precision gyroscopes needed for spacefaring systems.

Electronics: The Pentagon has been sounding the alarm about China's growing power in the printed circuit board market, and this report continues that trend. The United States now accounts for only 5 percent of global production, representing a 70 percent decrease from $10 billion in 2000 to $3 billion in 2015, per the report. Meanwhile, almost half of global production comes from China.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/06/27/here-are-the-biggest-weaknesses-in-americas-defense-sector/

Sur le même sujet

  • Britain moves to protect its defense industry from foreign influence

    13 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Britain moves to protect its defense industry from foreign influence

    By: Andrew Chuter LONDON – Defense and space industries are among nearly twenty sectors named by the British government in the introduction of new legislation Nov. 11 aimed at tightening regulations allowing it to block potentially hostile direct foreign investment. The government said the National Security and Investment Bill will strengthen its ability to investigate and intervene in mergers, acquisitions and other types of deals potentially posing a threat to British national security. Artificial intelligence, robotics, military or dual-use technologies, satellite and space technologies, defense and critical suppliers to the government were among 17 industry sectors included in the new legislation. The new powers allow the government to act against investors from any country, including the United States. “Under the National Security and Investment Bill, the government will be taking a targeted, proportionate approach to ensure it can scrutinize, impose conditions on or, as a last resort, block a deal in any sector where there is an unacceptable risk to national security,” said the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial strategy in a statement. The acquisition of sensitive assets and intellectual property, as well as the acquisition of companies is covered by the legislation. The government said the move brings British legislation into the 21st century. Reporting of deals in the sectors covered by the legislation will be mandatory and companies could face heavy fines and the transactions made void if they fail to get approval from the Business department. Britain's effort to shut the door on unwelcome investors like the Chinese is part of a growing trend among Western nations. Earlier this year the United States introduced mandatory notification requirements for transactions concerning specified types of businesses as part of a broader program of reform. The Australian government have also introduced legislation requiring foreign investors to seek approval to acquire a direct interest in sensitive national security businesses. The powers pending before parliament are similar to those already in place with allies like France, Germany and Italy, said the government. Paul Everitt , the chief executive of the defense, aerospace and security lobby group ADS, welcomed the move but said it was important the government didn't deter overseas investors. “The government's plans must strike an appropriate balance between putting protections in place and continuing to ensure the UK remains an attractive environment for international investment,” said Everitt. Consultant Howard Wheeldon, of Wheeldon Strategic Advisory, also supported the government action, but he cautioned: “Does it [the legislation] have sufficient teeth? We certainly need to protect our specialist industry but we must also ensure and expect the playing field to be kept level.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/12/britain-moves-to-protect-its-defense-industry-from-foreign-influence/

  • The US Air Force is in no hurry to commit to a next-gen fighter design

    19 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    The US Air Force is in no hurry to commit to a next-gen fighter design

    By: Sebastian Sprenger BERLIN — The U.S. Air Force is taking its time to settle on a next-generation fighter design, awaiting instead lessons learned from the F-35 jet and playing the field with promising technologies, according to a senior service official. Options being kicked around are still in the conceptual stage, as America's newest fighter, the fifth-generation F-35, is only now “coming off the line,” according to Lt. Gen. David Nahom, the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for plans and programs. “We're not in a hurry,” Nahom told Defense News on the sidelines of the International Fighter Conference, an air power-themed confab of industry and government officials held in Berlin, Germany. He noted that expected deliveries of the F-35 and the relatively young age of the F-22 fleet enables the service to be picky about moving forward with the envisioned Next Generation Air Dominance weapon. In short, the Air Force wants to keep its options open for as long as possible for a weapon whose combat punch will lie not in a single aircraft but rather in the amalgamation of hardware and software, an airborne concerto of data clouds, artificial intelligence, and boundless interconnectivity. “We don't want to get too stuck into a platform,” Nahom said. “It's a very different way to approach it.” Still, the service plans to lay the groundwork for boosting the domain of information and data — organizing it, analyzing it, sharing it — as a key element for future aerial warfare. To that end, officials will include a “significant investment in the digital backbone” in the next budget request, Nahom said. As the Air Force studies its options, service analysts have shied away from the term “sixth-generation” aircraft as a successor to the F-35 because it's unclear what breakthrough technology will be created next. “What are the characteristics of sixth-generation? I don't know,” Nahom said. “Stealth is important,” he added, referring to one of the advertised features of the F-35. “But speed is important, too.” The service aims to develop a new capability quickly once the theoretical legwork is done. That is why there is a renewed emphasis now on engineering processes and algorithm development that Nahom said will have to unfold much faster than under previous aircraft programs. Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper has put down a marker to develop an aircraft within five years. “Based on what industry thinks they can do and what my team will tell me, we will need to set a cadence of how fast we think we build a new airplane from scratch. Right now, my estimate is five years. I may be wrong,” he told Defense News in an interview in September. The service's information-heavy tack on future aerial warfare echoes two European projects aimed at building a next-generation weapon: the British-led Tempest and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System. Both programs also lean on the the premise that data clouds, driven by artificial intelligence, can turn flying pieces of metal into breakthrough weaponry. In the case of the continental program, an envisioned “combat cloud” will be “the ocean between the islands of the platforms,” French Maj. Gen. Jean-Pascal Breton said at the conference. But Nahom noted a difference in the American way of thinking when it comes to piercing contested airspace — a key skill required of all future warplanes. While the Europeans seem to perceive the task as popping dispersed bubbles of ever-improving air defense systems, the U.S. view is that any airspace may be contested at any given time. That means a next-generation aircraft will be constantly engaged in the mission of punching its way through enemy defenses, like finding the holes in a never-ending series of Swiss cheese, Nahom said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/11/18/the-us-air-force-is-in-no-hurry-to-commit-to-a-next-gen-fighter-design/

  • Rheinmetall, GM Defense partner in Army's tactical truck competition

    18 août 2022 | International, Terrestre

    Rheinmetall, GM Defense partner in Army's tactical truck competition

    American Rheinmetall Vehicles and GM Defense are combining heir strengths in the vehicle world to compete for the U.S. Army's Common Tactical Vehicle.

Toutes les nouvelles