8 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

House Appropriators Add 12 F-35s, Boost Weapons Spending, But…

"To us, it means that there is going to be much more tension and debate over future modernization programs as flat investment will not enable DoD to recapitalize in a timely and militarily relevant pace," says defense analyst Byron Callan.

By on July 07, 2020 at 7:38 PM

WASHINGTON: House appropriators made their first cut at the annual defense spending bill today, approving spending $3.5 billion below the Trump Administration's request — although lawmakers added a substantial $4.1 billion for several weapons systems, including 12 additional F-35s.

Overall, the House Appropriations Committee trimmed $3.5 billion from the Trump Administration's 2021 budget request while still fully paying for a 3% pay raise and force structure increases to all but the Marines, who will lose 2,100 people.

The appropriators approval of an increase in F-35 buys makes it unlikely the House Armed Services Committee's skepticism of the Joint Strike Fighter program will prevail. The HASC added no more planes above the administration request for 79 aircraft of all three models and docked at least a score of supporting line items by a total of $561 million. By contrast the SASC added $1.36 billion to buy more Air Force F-35As, Marine F-35Bs, and Navy F-35Cs, plus spare parts.

In other bump ups, the HAC funds 11 V-22 aircraft, adding $1.1 billion to buy two more than the request. It also adds three P-8A Poseidon aircraft for the Navy Reserve, three more than the request for an additional $510 million. And echoing the House authorizing committee's support, the HAC added 16 MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles to the Pentagon request, for a cost of $344 million.

But making sense of the HAC-D bill is difficult because it's not yet clear what and where they've cut, as veteran defense stock analyst Byron Callan notes. It all gets complicated by the CARES Act and adjustments to contracts that have been made.

Overall, Callan says, it looks as if fiscal 2020 — last year — may have been the peak of whatever Trump defense boost there has been. But it's all uncertain.

“Absent the pandemic budget impacts, however, the markups so far suggest that FY20 was a peak for DoD investment. This does not mean investment is at the peak and headed fast downhill in FY21 and beyond,” Callan writes. “To us, it means that there is going to be much more tension and debate over future modernization programs as flat investment will not enable DoD to recapitalize in a timely and militarily relevant pace.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/house-appropriators-add-12-f-35s-boost-weapons-spending-but/

Sur le même sujet

  • GAO Chides DoD For Absence Of Cybersecurity Requirements

    8 juin 2020 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

    GAO Chides DoD For Absence Of Cybersecurity Requirements

    Overall, costs of major DoD acquisition programs have grown by 54 percent over their lifetimes and schedule delays average two years, GAO's annual report finds. By THERESA HITCHENS WASHINGTON: Five years after the Pentagon demanded every weapon system include the requirement that it be able to fight through Russian and Chinese cyber attacks expected on future battlefields, DoD “does not often include cybersecurity” in key performance parameters (KPP) for major programs, says GAO in its annual defense acquisition review. Of the three services, the Air Force is the worst at fulfilling two of the three best cybersecurity practices, the report says. The congressional watchdog found “inconsistent implementation of leading software practices and cybersecurity measures” among high-dollar “major defense acquisition programs” (MDAPs) — 85 programs worth $1.80 trillion at the end of 2019. “This included longer-than-expected delivery times for software and delays completing cybersecurity assessments— outcomes disruptive to DOD's efforts to keep pace with warfighters' needs for enhanced, software-dependent capabilities and protect weapon systems from increasingly sophisticated cybersecurity threats,” GAO said in the June 3 report. Cybersecurity KPPs Left Out The GAO report explains that KPP “are considered the most critical requirements by the sponsor military organization, while key system attributes (KSA) and other performance attributes are considered essential for an effective military capability.” In 2015, DOD modified its main requirements policy—the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System Manual (JCIDS) rules on “survivability” requirements to include the ability to operate in a “degraded cyber environment.” Yet, GAO found that, at the end of 2019, 25 of the 42 major acquisition programs reviewed regarding cybersecurity practices failed to include cybersecurity as a parameter in their KPPs; “even more programs reported that their KSAs did not address cybersecurity.” GAO has targeted cybersecurity, software development and DoD-wide information technology (IT) improvement programs in its recent annual reviews because DoD weapon systems “are more networked than ever before — a change that while providing benefits for the warfighter also “has come at a cost” because “more weapon components can now be attacked using cybersecurity capabilities,” GAO explains. “Further, networks can be used as a pathway to attack other systems.” The watchdog has found consistently that failing to bake in cybersecurity requirements to system design and development ends up costing more money and time when program offices struggle to re-engineer systems once they hit production. This is a problem that affects most types of software development; and similarly trying to upgrade or replace software to improve cybersecurity often proves impossible. The 2019 report thus “looked at DOD's progress with developing: (1) strategies that help ensure that programs are planning for and documenting cybersecurity risk management efforts (cybersecurity strategies), (2) evaluations that allow testers to identify systems' weaknesses that are susceptible to cybersecurity attacks and that could potentially jeopardize mission execution (cybersecurity vulnerability evaluations), and (3) assessments that evaluate the ability of a unit equipped with a system to support assigned missions (cybersecurity assessments).” Most of the 38 MDAPs reviewed reported creation of cybersecurity strategies. However, of the 19 major programs that require cybersecurity vulnerability evaluations — under regulations set by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord — 11 have not completed them or failed to do so on time. Another three said they didn't have a schedule yet for doing so; and one — an unnamed Air Force program — told GAO it actually didn't know if it had undertaken the required evaluation. Indeed, the Air Force had the worst record on the evaluations, with none of its six programs having completed the evaluation processes. Of the 42 programs, 14 told GAO they had not finished their cybersecurity assessments. GAO also “found variation among the military departments in the rates they had completed these assessments. Specifically, among the three military departments, the Army reported the best rate for programs conducting cybersecurity assessments, while the Air Force had the lowest rate.” IT and Software Problems Plague Programs “Over the years, weapon acquisition program officials, through their responses to our questionnaires, have consistently acknowledged software development as a risk item in their efforts to develop and field capabilities to the warfighter, and this year is no different,” GAO reported somewhat wryly. GAO found that more than a quarter of the 42 MDAPs reviewed reported cost growth from software changes but admitted that “details are limited” in DoD reporting. Part of that uncertainty might be due to the fact that GAO found a number of major programs are transitioning to commercial approaches to software development, such as “agile development” that involves introducing incremental improvements over time. However, GAO found, “deliveries often lag behind industry standards.” Indeed, Air Force acquisition czar Will Roper told a webinar yesterday sponsored by Dcode, a tech innovation hub connecting commercial industry to government agencies, that while the Air Force can't go back and re-do old programs, “every new contract we do has to include DevSecOps.” “We are all in,” he added, “it's going to change the world.” DevSecOps stands for “development, security and operations,” and is a framework and tools for “designing in” software and cybersecurity. Roper long has been a key champion within DoD for moving to commercial practices and has repeatedly said he wants the Air Force to become a “software company.” GAO said that officials from 26 of the MDAPs regarding software development reported that software concerns had created risks at some point during their program's history. The biggest problem faced was — you guessed it — changes necessitated to ensure cybersecurity. The second biggest program was that the software development simply was “more difficult than expected.” Hardware design changes also played a big role in creating software problems, requiring subsequent changes in software configurations. Interestingly, while often bemoaned as a cause for program delays, requirements changes came in at the low of end of the reported issues troubling software development. Of the 15 major DoD IT programs reviewed, worth $15.1 million, 10 had delays in their original baseline schedules. But on the bright side, 11 showed decreased life cycle cost estimates. Further, all 15 have cybersecurity strategies as required by DoD regulations, and most reported having undertaken in 2019 at least one operational cybersecurity test. That said, “less than half reported conducting developmental cybersecurity testing,” GAO found. And according to DoD's own “Cybersecurity Testing and Evaluation Guidebook,” GAO scolds, “not conducting developmental cybersecurity testing puts programs at an increased risk of cost and schedule growth and poor program performance. Cost and Schedule Growth Stabilizes As it does every year, GAO also reviewed all 85 MDAPs for cost and schedule growth, and on that front the news is good: GAO found that the programs DoD Overview “have generally stabilized non-quantity related — (i.e. meaning not related to buy more stuff) — cost growth and schedule growth.” “Between 2018 and 2019, total acquisition cost estimates for DoD's 85 current MDAPs grew by a combined $64 billion (a 4 percent increase), growth that was driven by decisions to increase planned quantities of some weapon systems,” GAO found. “For example, DoD more than doubled in the past year the total number of missiles it plans to acquire through the Air Force's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile program.” And some programs actually lowered their year-average costs. GAO found that 55 MDAPs (more than half) “had lower average procurement unit costs since last year. Examples of programs with lower unit costs include the Navy's Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (16 percent decrease) and the Air Force's F-22 Increment 3.2B Modernization (15 percent decrease).” “Also between 2018 and 2019, capability delivery schedules for MDAPs increased, on average, by just over 1 month (a 1 percent increase),” GAO said. However, the report cautioned that cost/schedule performance looks “less encouraging as measured against their original approved program baselines.” The report found that the major acquisition programs “have accumulated over $628 billion (or 54%) in total cost growth since program start, most of which is unrelated to the increase in quantities purchased. Additionally, over the same time period, time required to deliver initial capabilities has increased by 30%, resulting in an average delay of more than two years. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/major-dod-acquisition-programs-flounder-on-cybersecurity-gao

  • Old Weapons Under Fire As COVID Debt Rises

    6 mai 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Old Weapons Under Fire As COVID Debt Rises

    With defense budgets expected to be coming in flat under even best-case scenarios, the time for tough decisions might be coming. By PAUL MCLEARY WASHINGTON: The Pentagon may slash older weapons programs to buy new ones in coming years if the federal government's COVID-19 response takes a big bite out of budgets, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said today. Before the global pandemic slammed American society and ground the economy to a halt, Pentagon leaders were already looking at flat defense budgets and were casting about for fat to trim. But the trillions Congress and the Trump administration has pumped into the economy, which falls on top of an already exploding budget deficit, could make predictions of flat budgets look optimistic. Esper told reporters at the Pentagon he would target older programs: “We need to move away from the legacy, and we need to invest those dollars in the future. And we have a lot of legacy programs out there right now — I could pick dozens out from all branches of the services” that could be cut or curtailed. As Army Secretary in 2018, Esper's “Night Courts” saved the service some $33 billion through scrapping oler programs with an eye to pumping cash into new weapons programs. The Navy is undergoing a review that aims to shave $40 billion in the coming years, and the Marine Corps is aggressively getting rid of troops, tanks, helicopters, and — possibly — trimming the F-35 to make room for modernization investments. In particular, the massive modernization of the nuclear delivery systems will not be touched. Esper said “we're not going to risk the strategic deterrent we need to modernize,” if budgets trend downward, but acknowledged that cutting old weapons systems before their replacements were ready “would mean probably accepting some near term risk, but I think [modernizing is] important given the trajectory that China is on, and we know where Russia may be going in the coming year.” Earlier this week, Esper said he was concerned that exploding budget deficits would put an end to the dream of 3% to 5% yearly defense budget growth, which he had targeted for Pentagon modernization. “There is a concern there that that may lead to smaller defense budgets in the future at the critical time we need to continue making this adjustment, where we look at China, then Russia, as our long-term strategic competitors,” he said at the Brookings Institute. Some lawmakers are bracing for the coming cuts. “I am extremely concerned about that,” House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Mike Gallagher told me recently. “I think it is going to require defense hawks, like myself, to make not only more energetic arguments, but new and creative geopolitical arguments,” to advocate for spending on modernization programs. “If you assume downward pressure on the defense budget, it means that DoD will need to get the most out of every dollar spent.” Those arguments will be critically important for the services as they pitch their latest modernization efforts. “I think the budget comes down sooner rather than later,” Mackenzie Eaglen, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said during a recent webinar Adding fuel to that view was Todd Harrison, DoD budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Security, who added, “what has historically happened is, when Congress's fiscal conservatives come out and get serious about reducing the debt, reducing spending on defense is almost always part of what they come up with for a solution,” he said. “So, we could be looking at a deficit-driven defense drawdown coming.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/old-weapons-under-fire-as-covid-debt-rises/

  • DSEI: British, Italian defense companies jump on Tempest

    12 septembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    DSEI: British, Italian defense companies jump on Tempest

    By: Sebastian Sprenger and Andrew Chuter LONDON – BAE Systems and Leonardo on Wednesday formalized a partnership agreement to cooperate on the Tempest next-generation combat aircraft, following a pact signed between the U.K. and Italian governments late Tuesday afternoon. The inclusion of Italy in the ambitious project marks the third partner nation, following Sweden, that the British were able to sign. And BAE officials on hand here at the DSEI defense trade show hinted that more could follow soon. Leonardo brings with it a smattering of Italian companies, including Avio Aero and Elettronica, adding to the team of MBDA and Rolls Royce already onboard. BAE Systems chief Charles Woodburn said both nations and their respective industries are “committed” to seeing Tempest through. The program is envisioned to be a sixth-generation, aerial combat system featuring manned planes, drones, sensors and weapons working in unprecedented collaboration. The two countries already work together on the American-led F-35 as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Advancing those programs is also an explicit objective in the new partnership between London and Rome. A statement released by the UK Ministry of Defence Wednesday morning framed the government agreement – signed by Simon Bollom, the head of Defence Equipment and Support, and Lt. Gen. Nicolò Falsaperna, Italian Secretary General of Defence – as a broad pledge to cooperate on matters of “combat air capability.” The idea is to “deepen discussions on Tempest military requirements,” come up with a “road map” for feeding advanced Eurofighter capabilities into the future program, and facilitate an industry ecosystem to make it all happen, according to the statement. “The U.K. and Italy have a proven 50-year track record of working closely together on Combat Aircraft development and support through the Panavia Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon programs,” reads the defense ministry statement. “Both governments confirmed a common desire for a strong industrial base to develop key capabilities and boost prosperity in both nations. The agreement also paves the way for closer industrial collaboration, including through shared industrial entities such as Leonardo and MBDA.” Leonardo CEO Alessandro Profumo lauded the joint Tempest effort as an “ambitious and strategically important” program. Joining it this early in the process, he said, would allow his company greater say in future decisions. The U.K.-Italy venture comes as France, Germany and Spain are working on their own version of Europe's next-generation weapon, the Future Combat Air System. With much pomp and circumstance accorded here to the Tempest effort, including promotion under the banner of the Royal Air Force and a full-scale mockup sitting prominently in the exhibit hall, the continental counterpart appeared more of a distant theory in comparison. The FCAS program, led on the industry side by Airbus and Dassault, has been dogged by a fundamental disagreement between German and France about the exportability of its envisioned components. Berlin taking a more restrictive stance than Paris when it comes to potential buyers in the Middle East. Following Spain's recent inclusion in the program, the Madrid government has designated electronics specialist Indra as the national industry lead, a move that left the Spanish Airbus division feeling burned, according to sources. Trade show attendees here associated with the FCAS program brushed aside the notion of Tempest as the more concrete proposal, noting how Brexit would cast a shadow of uncertainty on the UK's budget, not to speak of Italy's ongoing financial troubles. At the same time, the U.K.-Italian-Swedish and the Franco-German-Spanish efforts make for formidable competition in a continent where military budgets are limited. Asked by a reporter how he sees the two programs play out over the next ten years, Profumo only stated the obvious: “Two programs are more expensive than one.” So where might the British turn next in their quest for international partners? Woodburn, the head of BAE, told Defense News that talks with other possible partners are ongoing. "We are in discussions with other nations, but what it shows is there are plenty of people who want to join the team although they may be different types of partners to the ones we have right now," he said. Leonardo U.K. boss Norman Bone said Team Tempest hadn't stopped talking to core companies but were also looking at partners who bring other benefits. “We haven't drawn the line on industrial capability but maybe there are partners who bring money and markets in exchange for technology transfer,” said Bone. Enzo Benigni, the CEO of Elettronica, said his company's participation in Tempest is a crucial milestone for the company. “It's a partnership that will last 40 or 50 years,” he told reporters. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/11/british-italian-defense-companies-jump-on-tempest

Toutes les nouvelles