21 juin 2019 | International, Naval

Naval Engineers Must 'Lean In' to Advance Technological Agility

Rebuilding "strategic momentum" and growing advantages in the maritime domain are challenges Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John M. Richardson addressed in "A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, Version 2.0," which updated a 2016 document.

At an annual meeting of the American Society of Naval Engineers today in Washington, Richardson said meeting those challenges is a "human problem" that must be met, in part by naval engineers.

His plan for how the Navy will maintain maritime superiority relies in part on three aspects of agility. "With the joint force, we will restore agility — conceptual, geographic, and technological — to impose cost[s] on our adversaries across the competition-conflict spectrum," the report reads.

For engineers, Richardson focused on their contribution to technological agility.

"The technological landscape is changing so fast across all of technology," Richardson said. "It's really fueled by this information revolution that we are in the middle of right now. And so as we think about the Navy as a learning engine in and of itself, restoring these technical agilities is really important. We do need to move at pace."

For comparison, the admiral referred back to Dec. 8, 1941 — a day after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. It was then, Richardson said, that the Navy began a quick transition from battleship-based tactics to aircraft carriers and aerial battles. He said the switch in strategy wasn't a surprise for the Navy, because it had been researching and engineering for that possibility for years.

"We had been 20 years into naval aviation," he said. "This was not just something that we did as a pickup team on Dec. 8. We had been putting investments in with folks like [Joseph] Reeves and [William] Moffett and all those pioneers of naval aviation. We had evidence. A lot of experimentation, a lot of engineering that had gone into that."

Now, Richardson said, the Navy must again have that kind of experimentation, engineering and prototyping to ready it for the next conflict — and it must get on that mission quickly to stay ahead of adversaries.

"We do not want to be the second navy on the water with these decisive technologies: the directed energy, unmanned, machine learning, artificial intelligence, etc., you name it," he said. "That's the great challenge now: to get out, start prototyping, get at this pace, plus evidence ... to yield a relevant Navy that is ready to defend America from attack and protect our interests around the world."

The admiral said that a knee-jerk reaction might be to cite Defense Department acquisition regulations, like DOD 5000, for inhibiting the type of rapid development, engineering and research he thinks will be needed to maintain maritime dominance. But he said that's not entirely correct.

"I think a new set of rules would help," he said. "But this is, I think, a human problem at the end of the day. If we are all biased for action, if we all lean into this, we will get it done. There is nothing that will prohibit us or inhibit us from getting that done if we are all leaning in."

https://www.defense.gov/explore/story/Article/1882567/naval-engineers-must-lean-in-to-advance-technological-agility/

Sur le même sujet

16 juillet 2018 | International, Aérospatial

La Slovaquie va acheter quatorze F-16V
En optant pour le chasseur de Lockheed Martin, la Slovaquie ajoute un 28ème nom à la liste déjà très longue des pays utilisateurs du F-16 La Slovaquie a donc décidé de remplacer ses MiG29, hérités de l'ancienne Tchécoslovaquie, par la dernière itération du F-16, la version block 70, alias F-16V. La vente, approuvée par le département d'état américain, se monterait à un peu moins de deux milliards dollars, avions, équipements de maintenance, réacteur et radars de rechange, entrainement des équipages, missiles air-air, nacelles de désignation laser Sniper et sourire de la crémière américaine. Le F-16V a été choisi de préférence au Saab Gripen « parce qu'il coûtait moins cher et qu'il était disponible plus rapidement » ont indiqué les autorités slovaques. Celles ci ont également reconnu que le choix en faveur du F-16 était inspiré par leur volonté d'approfondir les liens avec l'Otan. Pas un mot en revanche sur la nécessité pour un pays de 5,4 millions d'habitants, enclavé entre l'Ukraine, la Hongrie, l'Autriche, la république tchèque et la Pologne, de se payer une poignée d'avions de combat neufs et hautement sophistiqués. https://www.aerobuzz.fr/breves-defense/la-slovaquie-va-acheter-quatorze-f-16v/
25 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

Lockheed: DoD Focused on Lowest Price in Recent Competitions; May Affect LM Participation in Future Bids
By: Ben Werner Lockheed Martin officials say their loss to Boeing in three recent aircraft competitions indicates that Pentagon weapon buyers are valuing low price tags over high-tech capabilities, which may lead the company to question its participation in some future competitions. The company reported strong revenue growth and expected solid earnings in the future, but during a Tuesday morning conference call with Wall Street analysts, company officials sounded burned by losing out on three significant contracts during the recently completed third quarter of 2018. “We do see that affordability is a very important element for them,” said Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin's chief executive, referring to the Pentagon's weapons buyers. In a competition pitting designs from Lockheed Martin, General Atomics and Boeing, the Navy awarded Boeing an $805-million award in August to build the first four unmanned carrier-based aerial refueling tankers, the MQ-25A Stingray. Ultimately, the Navy wants to purchase 72 more vehicles, for a program price of roughly $13 billion. Boeing also beat out Lockheed Martin for a pair of Air Force contracts – $2.38 billion to replace the Air Force fleet of H-1 Huey helicopters, and $9.2 billion for the new fleet of Air Force T-X trainer jets. “We believe our proposals represented outstanding technical offerings at our lowest possible pricing,” Hewson said. “Had we matched the winning prices and been awarded the contracts, we estimate that we would have incurred cumulative losses across all three programs in excess of $5 billion; an outcome that we do not feel would have been in the best interest of our stockholders or customers.” Hewson and Bruce Tanner, Lockheed Martin's chief financial officer, downplayed the long-term significance of missing out on this trio of large contracts. Lockheed Martin reported revenues of $14.3 billion for the quarter, compared to revenues of $12.3 billion a year ago. Earnings for the quarter were $1.5 billion for the quarter, compared to earnings of $963 million a year ago. Increased sales of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters as production increases, as well as increased demand for missiles, were vital to the revenue increases. Looking forward, even with Pentagon spending not expected to grow, Tanner expects Lockheed Martin's profits from sales to grow, resulting in cash from operations to remain in the $7-billion range for the next three years. However, neither Hewson nor Tanner masked their disappointment in the selection of Boeing over Lockheed Martin for the three aviation programs. “Those were disappointing for a lot of reasons. But the fact they really decided, all three, on an LPTA (lowest price technically acceptable) basis, didn't help the situation,” Tanner said. “It's not getting the best capabilities for the warfighter in the hands of the warfighter.” A year ago, when discussing the MQ-25 program, Navy officials suggested capability was their primary focus. Cost estimates were specifically not addressed because the Navy wanted to learn what was possible, Rear Adm. Mark Darrah, Program Executive Officer Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, told USNI News in July 2017. “When we put a number out there, eerily they tend to get to that number and go backwards, go backwards in their development, so they hit that number. We are taking a different approach this time. We're not going to define that number at this point and direct them to provide us with their input so that we can adequately and accurately determine what they truly can do,” Darrah said in the 2017 interview. On Tuesday, Hewson acknowledged the types of projects Lockheed Martin bids on in the future could be affected by the Pentagon's focus on price when seeking new weapons programs. “We're going to pursue good business opportunities for us,” Hewson said. “We have talked about this before: affordability is an important value for them.” Hewson also addressed the growing speculation over whether defense contractors would be allowed to continue doing business with Saudi Arabia, as the United States government still grapples with the fallout from the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi after last seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istambul. The kingdom is a Lockheed Martin customer, but Hewson said the company had relatively minor exposure to any fallout from having arms deal nixed by the U.S. government. Currently, the largest contract Lockheed Martin has with Saudi Arabia is to build the kingdom's fleet of four multi-mission surface combatant ships, based on the Littoral Combat Ship, worth $6 billion. Saudi Arabia just awarded Lockheed Martin a $450-million detailed planning and design contract, which is related to the planned four-ship purchase. “The largest order we've been waiting on obviously is for THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), ” Tanner said. “That has not taken place yet. Not sure when that will take place. The interesting thing with the THAAD order is, while it brings a significant increase in backlog, the resulting sales, profit, and cash flow with that order are very much pushed to the right.” Required upgrades to Saudi Arabia's radar technology will delay the $15-billion THAAD order delivery for at least four years, Tanner explained. Without the technical refresh, he said Saudi Arabia would be unable to use the missiles effectively. “I think we have in 2019 about less than half a billion dollars of sales planned, and I looked out into in 2020, and it's less than $900 million in sales,” Tanner said. “So it's not a huge amount of dependency on the activity, even though the opportunities we've described are much larger than that obviously.” https://news.usni.org/2018/10/23/37506
13 janvier 2021 | International, Aérospatial

Does Japan Need to Develop a New Fighter Aircraft?
By Arnaud Sobrero The Japanese archipelago lies in a volatile region rife with historical tensions and territorial disputes. China's defense spending has increased at a double-digit rate annually for much of the past three decades. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has drastically modernized its air capabilities with development of the J-20 fighter and the upcoming FC-31, and has demonstrated consistently assertive behavior, including airspace violations and military buildups in the South China Sea. North Korea, a nuclear power since 2006, has also shown belligerence by firing ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan, while Russia has violated Japanese airspace on several occasions prompting Japan to scramble its F-15J fleet. Those geopolitical challenges are clearly stated in Japan's Mid Term Defense Plan and National Defense Plan Guidelines, which define Japan's long-term procurement strategy. To effectively address those security challenges, these documents claim, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) needs to modernize its existing fleet and significantly upgrade its capabilities. Japan's 200-plus-strong F-15J fleet, built under license by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, has been the backbone of Japan's air superiority for close to 40 years. Nonetheless, they face some obsolescence issues that have led the Japanese defense ministry to purchase a $4.5 billion upgrade package to modernize 98 of them into a “Japan Super Interceptor” configuration equipped with better radar, avionics, and weaponry. The F-2 program, co-developed with Lockheed Martin, has been facing operational challenges and has a staggering unit cost of $170 million. Even though the last F-2 was delivered in 2011, the program faces significant obsolescence issues and will remain in service for a shorter duration than the F-15J. Given the dynamic geopolitical environment Japan finds itself in, the Japanese defense ministry is determined to fill the capability gap created by the old F-15J and the future retirement of the F-2. It has decided to purchase its first batch of 42 F-35As, destined to replace the aging F-4, followed by a second batch comprised of 63 F-35A and 42 F-35B fighters, worth $23 billion. The F-35 is a formidable addition to Japan's military apparatus: it offers stealth, excellent sensor and networking capabilities,and an ability to fuse real-time information for rapid decision-making rather than high speed and pure dogfighting capabilities. From a traditional standpoint, the F-35 scarcely represents the air superiority platform the JASDF wants to counter China's growing fleet of J-11 fighters, or even the more advanced platforms recently deployed by Beijing, such as the Su-35 or J-20. Japan has tried to acquire the F-22 from Lockheed Martin but ultimately failed to do so, given that the aircraft was not designed for export due to its sensitive technologies. The JASDF is still looking to acquire a stealthy, twin-engine, long-range air superiority fighter with a robust payload and advanced networking capabilities, which will provide Japan with a qualitative military edge over growing Chinese air capabilities. ADVERTISEMENT Beyond the requirement of modernizing JASDF's capabilities, maintaining a competitive defense industrial base has been a primary strategic goal for Japan. After the Second World War, Japan spent decades rebuilding its aerospace sector, building U.S. military aircraft under license, including the F-86, F-4, F-15, CH-47, and P-3. Building sophisticated aircraft under license has been Japan's de facto strategy to acquire new technologies and upgrade its industrial base skills. Japan has historically relied on U.S. companies to import military hardware through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) framework. These imports have increased considerably in the last decade, its proportion of the country's total defense budget rising from 0.9 percent in 2010 to 8.9 percent in 2019 with big-ticket items like the F-35, the MV-22, and the E-2D being procured through the government-to-government route. Outside of servicing those types of equipment, tier 1 and tier 2 domestic companies have not benefited from those FMS programs. Japanese companies face restrictions on sharing some critical software intellectual property and technical data from equipment that has originated in the U.S. original. Even Japan's industrial participation in the manufacture of the F-35 has been a far cry from what the local industry had envisioned initially, when Japanese companies were seeking a larger role in the aircraft's production. Recently, in a blow to U.S. military exports, the Japanese defense ministry has decided to scrap two major programs – the Global Hawk and the Aegis Ashore – due to some price and technical issues. These developments may suggest that Japan is potentially reconsidering its engagement with the U.S. on military hardware and could utilize government funds instead for domestic development to enhance the competitiveness of its defense industrial base and, more importantly, gain full control of defense capabilities, as well as on future upgrades. According to the ministry of defense's Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency, Japan is looking to leverage the technologies the industry has captured through license production, as well as the development of the experimental ATD-X stealth aircraft, for the development of an indigenous fighter, known as F-X. This would represent a shift in Japan's long-term procurement strategy and could indicate that Japan is now looking to partner for the design and manufacturing of sixth-generation fighter aircraft technologies. After former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo's return to power in 2012, he stopped years of decline in defense spending by boosting investments modestly. After eight years of slow but steady increase, the Japanese defense budget stands at a record of about $51.6 billion with the FY21 budget request. In addition, the Japanese defense ministry decided to “convert” its Izumo helicopter destroyer into a small aircraft carrier capable of accommodating 12 F-35B jet fighters, which will strengthen Japan's offensive capabilities. Following the lift of the ban on defense exports, Japan had seen last year its first successful military export, with the sale of air radar systems to the Philippines. Japan would likewise welcome an opportunity to export the F-X, its future sixth-generation fighter, with the assistance of an international partner – if not to promote military ties with friendly nations, then in order to reduce the tremendous development cost. Of all the challenges the F-X program will face, its affordability will be the most pressing. The F-X program represents a clear continuation of Abe's robust defense doctrine and will further cement its legacy into Japan's long-term military modernization. By bolstering the country's domestic defense industrial base and by enabling technological transfer, the F-X program will help Japan catch up with China and Russia in the stealth fighter market. Based in Asia for more than 10 years, Arnaud Sobrero is an independent writer focused on defense technology and East Asian affairs. https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/does-japan-need-to-develop-a-new-fighter-aircraft/

Toutes les nouvelles