Kratos Receives $45 Million Satellite System Related Contract Award

Sur le même sujet

• 

  8 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Dynetics seeks closer soft docking of X-61A Gremlins in next flight test

  by Pat Host Dynetics believes it gained enough data from a July flight test of its X-61A Gremlins unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to next time achieve a closer soft docking to the recovery aircraft than the 38 m distance it reached in July. The July flight test was the demonstration of a second X-61A air vehicle as well as the Gremlins airborne recovery system. The X-61A, which weighs 544 kg, flew for a total flight time of 2 hours 12 minutes and flew in formation with a Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft from as close as 38 m back and 38 m below the aircraft. Tim Keeter, Dynetics Gremlins programme manager, told Janes on 27 August that the company needed centimetre-level accuracy and precision to get the air vehicle's engagement arm into the 30 cm stabilised towed docking, or capture, device. This process is known as soft docking. Dynetics, Keeter said, advanced the maturity of the system, its confidence in the air vehicle's behaviour, and downloaded enough data where the company is confident it can close that last 38 m for a closer soft docking event in an upcoming flight test. The X-61A that flew in July was Gremlins Air Vehicle (GAV) Number 3, the first flight for this air vehicle. Keeter said Dynetics launched this air vehicle the same way it launched the first one: from a pylon on a C-130 operated by International Air Response (IAR), which offers C-130 services. Dynetics used the same C-130 for both launch and recovery. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/dynetics-seeks-closer-soft-docking-of-x-61a-gremlins-in-next-flight-test

• 

  6 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Making the case for commercially successful tech

  Peter Villano Despite the Pentagon's efforts to develop advanced technology to strengthen national security and stay competitive, barriers remain, keeping much of the most promising emerging technology out of the government. Pockets of success do exist; Air Force acquisition in particular evaluates dual-use technologies through AFWERX and investment arm AFVentures. To truly enhance our national security, however, more needs to be done to fund companies that have proven, viable emerging technologies. Most nontraditional companies with proven technologies that don't have national security experience already work with Fortune 500 companies and in highly regulated, complex industries. The problem is that most of these companies are still overlooked for collaboration with the government and the Pentagon. In an effort to leverage our nation's commercial innovators, the Small Business Innovation Research program requires federal agencies with large research and development budgets, like the Department of Defense, to set aside funds for small businesses. But the government's definitions for eligible small businesses can disadvantage tech companies that have already succeeded in the private sector. The SBIR program has been successful in many ways, but most awards go to companies already focused on the government. Robert Rozansky and Robert D. Atkinson wrote that nearly a fifth of all SBIR awards go to companies that have already won 50 or more times, evidencing failure to reach the most promising technology companies. A 2019 report from the Alliance for Digital Innovation claimed that the federal government's failure to adopt commercial technology has wasted $345 billion over the past 25 years. And a report from Govini noted that approximately 59 percent of DoD research and development funding is concentrated in the top 10 vendors, limiting innovation. As calls for public sector innovation remind us, the DoD needs the most advanced technology from the private sector. There are critical steps the DoD should take to fix this problem. First, the government should reform the SBIR program and dedicate new, flexible resources to find and utilize viable, commercially successful tech companies. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2020 provides additional SBIR flexibility for small businesses more than 50 percent owned by venture capital. But the DoD has yet to fully promulgate this new flexible authority and is missing an opportunity to work with proven, VC-backed companies. The Small Business Administration should adjust the eligibility standards for the SBIR program to incentivize growth and, more importantly, take advantage of companies with more venture funding and a proven record of past performance. The number of repeat winners indicates that the SBIR program is not casting a wide enough net. Second, the DoD should further streamline acquisitions, reward acquisition executives who move fast, and expand flexible programs such as AFWERX, SOFWERX and the Defense Innovation Unit. Mike Madsen, deputy director and director of strategic engagement of DIU, said: “What [DIU has] represented is a lowering of those barriers to entry, making it easier for those leading-edge technology companies to get their technology to the men and women in uniform.” In the National Defense Authorization Act that passed the House, there is a charter for the National Security Innovation Network, which will expand and coordinate these efforts within the DoD. I strongly encourage the Senate to adopt the NSIN charter as well, and ensure its effort remains fully funded. The DoD alone awarded over 179 contracts in 2018 to nontraditional companies leveraging the other transaction authority, a flexible prototype authority outside of federal acquisition regulations. These contracts represent another way to engage high-growth tech companies. The DoD should continue to leverage OTAs. Third, the DoD should seek out federally focused accelerators and VCs in the private sector to inform, source and evaluate high-growth tech companies to drive federal missions forward. Federally focused tech accelerators like Dcode, and its investment network Dcode Capital, source promising tech for the government and ensure commercial tech is fully vetted and equipped to succeed in the federal marketplace. The DoD is also establishing in-house, VC-like programs, with AFVentures as an example. “This has been a year in the making now, trying to make our investment arm, the Air Force Ventures, act like an investor, even if it's a government entity,” the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, Dr. Will Roper, explained. Buy-in from Congress will also be crucial to the success of these initiatives, starting with the NSIN section of the NDAA. Working with the right private sector partners is vital, and organizations like Dcode reduce risk for the government. Defense organizations don't need to reinvent the wheel to work with commercially successful tech. Use what's available today to reduce barriers and risk, reform existing methods, and increase engagement with trustworthy resources to work with more viable commercial tech companies that can move our country forward. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/10/03/making-the-case-for-commercially-successful-tech/

• 

  18 septembre 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Army backs off idea to submit its own bid in Bradley replacement competition

  Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army is backing off a plan for the service to submit its own bid to the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle replacement competition after it indicated its intention to offer up its own design in a draft request for proposals posted in July. The service tried once before to competitively solicit designs for its Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) but ended up with just one offering after its requirements proved too onerous to industry and included a requirement to deliver a working prototype to the Army by October 2019. In a statement sent to Defense News Sept. 17 from Ashley John, an Army spokeswoman, she said “As a result of industry feedback and continuous dialogue between Army senior leaders, the government will not submit a proposal in response to the OMFV RFP. A revision to the draft OMFV RFP was made today and deletes paragraph A.3.1 Interested Government Offeror in its entirety." The Army's intention to develop its own bid was met with scrutiny as industry officials questioned whether the service could play the game after service leaders had already seen industry's cards during an earlier iteration of the competition. The move, many in industry thought, would have easily teed up protests. With pressure to get the competitive process right this time in a program where the service plans to spend $4.6 billion from fiscal 2022 through FY26, it is turning to industry input earlier and more than ever. Congress questioned Army leaders earlier this year on why it seemed the service did not pay attention to the signs or listen to industry and make adjustments before having to cancel its previous competition. First, BAE Systems, which manufactures the Bradley, decided not to compete due to unachievable requirements set within a very short timeline. Then the Army had to disqualify a Raytheon and Rheinmetall team because they couldn't get a physical bid sample to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in time. The service, this time around, reviewed and analyzed over 500 industry comments in response to the draft RFP and will now spend several weeks providing responses to industry concerns, John said. “As we continue to progress through the first-phase of our five-phased approach for the OMFV program, communication, inclusive feedback and innovative thinking from industry remains key,” John said. The Army waded back into the OMFV effort with the release of a market survey in February that tapped industry for ideas on what a future vehicle might look like. The market survey itself asked companies to weigh in on what affected their decisions to participate in the previous OMFV competitive effort and how the Army might better engage with industry this time around. Instead of providing a laundry list of requirements that when paired together became unachievable — especially when delivered over an ambitious fielding goal of 2026 — the Army will give industry roughly nine characteristics with which to work. The Army is also not requiring the delivery of physical bid samples in the first phase of competition. The Army plans to release a final RFP in December, which will results in the award of up to five contracts in June 2021. It appears likely that the Raytheon and Rheinmetall team and General Dynamics Land Systems will submit bids for the new competition. BAE Systems has not publicly said whether they plan to compete this time. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/09/17/army-backs-off-idea-to-submit-its-own-bid-in-bradley-replacement-competition/