11 décembre 2024 | International, Terrestre
10 juin 2019 | International, Aérospatial
How did the two offerings competing to be the US Army’s future engine measure up?
By: Jen Judson
WASHINGTON — Cost appears to have played a major role in the Army's decision to pick GE Aviation's T901 engine for its future helicopter engine, based on a look at documents laying out the service's post-award analysis, obtained by Defense News.
Yet, other factors not shown could have also contributed to the Army's choice, which the Government Accountability Office upheld following a protest from losing team Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC) — a partnership between Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney.
The GAO is expected to release a redacted version of its decision next week, which could shed more light on how the Army decided to move forward with GE.
While the cost of GE'S engine seems to have been a deciding factor, the document outlining the service's criteria to determine a winning engine design to move into the engineering and manufacturing development phase states that “all non-cost/price factors when combined are significantly more important than cost/price factor.”
According to that chart, the Army said it would primarily measure the engine submissions against its engine design and development, followed by cost/price, followed by life-cycle costs and then small business participation in order of importance.
The Army assessed ATEC's and GE's technical risk as good and gave ATEC a risk rating of low while it gave GE a risk rating of moderate when considering engineering design and development for each offering.
Both GE and ATEC had moderate risk ratings when it came to engine design and performance.
And while GE received a technical risk rating of moderate for component design and systems test and evaluation, ATEC received low risk ratings for both.
Almost all other technology risk assessments and risk ratings were the same for both engine offerings.
GE scored “outstanding” in platform integration capabilities.
Based off the chart, it appears ATEC won, so its likely the documents are not an exhaustive representation of how the Army decided to move forward with GE.
While both ATEC and GE offered prices within the Army's requirements, GE came in 30 percent lower in cost.
And according to Brig. Gen. Thomas Todd, the program executive officer for aviation, in an interview with Defense News in April, GE was also working on trying to shrink the timeline within the EMD phase by roughly a year.
But, in ATEC's view, the charts show it had offered the best value product to the Army.
ATEC's president, Craig Madden, told Defense News that the company took the Army's selection criteria laid out in the request for proposals seriously across the board from engineering design and development factors to cost to even small business participation, where it scored higher than GE in the analysis chart.
“We did come in higher in cost but this was considered a best value evaluation and not lowest price, technically acceptable,” Madden said. “I think low price is good for a plastic canteen or a bayonet, it's not good for a highly technical turbine engine.”
And despite coming in at a higher cost, Jerry Wheeler, ATEC's vice president said, the up front cost in the EMD phase will be higher but the delta would shrink when considering life-cycle costs of both engine offerings.
Both ATEC and GE received good technical ratings and were given risk ratings of low.
When just going by the chart, GE's four moderate risk ratings in key categories means “they could have disruption in schedule, increased cost and degradation of performance,” Madden said.
He added ATEC was also focused on lowering risk, so that, although the Army offered incentives to finish the EMD phase earlier than 66 months, ATEC presented a plan to complete at 66 months with a plan to look at acceleration wherever possible.
ATEC is now pushing to be a part of the EMD phase, essentially extending the competition, so that more data on engines can be garnered.
The Army had periodically weighed keeping the EMD phase competitive with two vendors, but ultimately chose to downselect to one.
For GE, the Army made the right decision and had enough data to do so.
“The U.S. Army competitively selected GE's T901 engine over ATEC T900 engine after more than 12 years of development,” David Wilson told Defense News in a statement.
“Those 12 years included the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program, during which both companies ran tow full engine tests,” he said.
Additionally, both companies executed a 24-month technology maturation and risk reduction contract where GE self-funded and successfully completed and tested a third engine, a full-sized T901 prototype engine, with successful tests on all components, Wilson said.
“We've done three full-engine tests and provided an unprecedented amount of test data to the Army for them to determine which engine was the best to move forward with in EMD,” he added.
Funding a second engine through EMD would cost more than twice as much and delay critical Army modernization by at least two years, Wilson argued.
Sur le même sujet
-
-
5 juin 2018 | International, Aérospatial
NASA’s new administrator says he’s talking to companies to take over the International Space Station
NASA is talking to several international companies about forming a consortium that would take over operation of the International Space Station and run it as a commercial space lab, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in an interview. “We're in a position now where there are people out there that can do commercial management of the International Space Station,” Bridenstine said in his first extensive interview since being sworn in as NASA administrator in April. “I've talked to many large corporations that are interested in getting involved in that through a consortium, if you will.” The White House touched off a heated discussion about the future of the orbiting laboratory earlier this year when it said it planned to end direct government funding of the station by 2025, while working on a transition plan to turn the station over to the private sector. Some members of Congress said they would vigorously oppose any plan that ends the station's life prematurely. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said the decision to end funding for it was the result of “numskulls” at the Office of Management and Budget. And it was unclear, who, if anyone, would want to take over operations of the station, which costs NASA about $3 billion to $4 billion a year and is run by an international partnership that includes the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency. An orbiting laboratory that flies some 250 miles above the Earth's surface, it has been continuously inhabited by astronauts since 2000. In unveiling its plan to commercialize the station earlier this year, the White House offered few details of how exactly it would work. As it prepares a transition plan, the White House said it “will request market analysis and business plans from the commercial sector and solicit plans from commercial industry.” The international nature of the station could make it tricky, though perhaps there could be an international commercial partnership with some sort of a government role, said Frank Slazer, the vice president of space systems for the Aerospace Industries Association. “It will be very hard to turn ISS into a truly commercial outpost because of the international agreements that the United States is involved in,” he said. “It's inherently always going to be an international construct that requires U.S. government involvement and multinational cooperation.” Bridenstine declined to name the companies that have expressed interest in managing the station, and said he was aware that companies may find it “hard to close the business case.” But he said there was still seven years to plan for the future of the station, and with the White House's budget request “we have forced the conversation.” A former congressman from Oklahoma, Bridenstine, was confirmed by the Senate by a narrow 50-to-49 votethis spring, after the post had remained vacant for 15 months. Democrats had rallied against his nomination, saying he lacked the managerial and scientific background for the job. Many had labeled him a climate-change denier over controversial comments Bridenstine, a conservative Republican, had made in the past. But during a Senate hearing last month, he said his views had evolved, and that he believes human activity is the leading cause of climate change. That earned him plaudits from Democrats, such as Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) who had opposed his nomination. “I have come to the conclusion that this is a true evolution,” Schatz said. “That you respect people with whom you work, you respect the science, you want their respect.” In the interview, Bridenstine said there was no single event that cause him to change his thinking. As chairman of the Environment subcommittee, he said he “listened to a lot of testimony. I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot. I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen. And we've done it in really significant ways.” In the wide-ranging interview, Bridenstine also listed a return to the moon and the restoration of human spaceflight from United States soil as two of his top priorities. NASA has proposed building an outpost in the vicinity of the moon that could be inhabited by humans from time to time, with landers that could ferry supplies to the lunar surface. Known as the Lunar Orbiting Platform Gateway, the system would be built by NASA in partnership with industry and its international partners, he said. “I've met with a lot of leaders of space agencies from around the world,” he said. “There is a lot of interest in the Gateway in the lunar outpost because a lot of countries want to have access to the surface of the moon. And this can help them as well and they can help us. It helps expand the partnership that we've seen in low Earth orbit with the International Space Station.” But the first element of the system wouldn't be launched until 2021 or 2022, he said. Perhaps as early as this year, Boeing and SpaceX, the companies hired by NASA to fly its astronauts to the space station, could see their first test flights with people on board, though it's possible they could be delayed to next year. Since the space shuttle was retired in 2011, Russia has flown NASA's astronauts to the station, charging hundreds of millions of dollars over that time. Bridenstine said that it is “a big objective is to once again launch American astronauts on American rockets from American soil.” Both Boeing and SpaceX have had delays and setbacks in their programs. Government watchdogs have said they were concerned about an issue with Boeing's abort system that may cause its spacecraft to “tumble,” posing a threat to the crew's safety. Boeing has said it has fixed that problem, as well as a concern with the heat shield that the Government Accountability Office said last year could disconnect “and damage the parachute system.” John Mulholland, Boeing's commercial crew program manager, told Congress earlier this year that the company's "analyses show that we exceed our requirements for crew safety." As administrator, Bridenstine and his staff will also have to sign off on SpaceX's decision to fuel its Falcon 9 rocket after the crews are on board -- which some have said could put astronauts at risk. But during a recent NASA safety advisory panel, some members said they thought the procedure could be a “viable option” if adequate safety controls are in place. SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk told reporters last month that he did not think the fueling process "presents a safety issue for astronauts. But we can adjust our operational procedures to load propellant before the astronauts board. But I really think this is an overblown issue.” In the interview, Bridenstine said no decision had been made yet about the fueling procedures. “I haven't signed off on anything at this point,” he said. “We're going to make sure we test it every which way you can possibly imagine. And that's underway right now. We're not going to put anybody in any undue risk.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/05/nasas-new-administrator-says-hes-talking-to-companies-to-take-over-the-international-space-station/
-
18 août 2024 | International, Aérospatial
HENSOLDT receives further fire control sight order for the German Armed Forces
HENSOLDT has received a further order for the delivery of "Dynahawk" fire control sights (FLV). The customer is the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw).