4 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

NDIA’s Wesley Hallman on a liability shield and other defense priorities for the next stimulus

By: Joe Gould

WASHINGTON―As the Pentagon works to defray the coronavirus pandemic's impact on its network of suppliers, it's worked hand-in-glove with defense and aerospace trade associations to find and address problems in the supply chain. The National Defense Industrial Association, whose members stretch into the lower tiers of the defense industrial base, surveyed more than 700 small businesses to find that cash-flow disruptions remained a problem as the Pentagon and major defense firms increase payments to suppliers.

Retired Air Force Col. Wesley Hallman is NDIA's senior vice president of policy, charged with monitoring Capitol Hill on matters of concern to defense, including annual budgets, acquisition and procurement reform. This week, he spoke with Defense News about NDIA's priorities as Congress mulls how to follow its third coronavirus response bill, worth $2.2 trillion and intended to speed relief across the American economy.

With NDIA's finger on the pulse of the supply chain and recent survey, how do you interpret the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord's numbers, demonstrating more defense firms that have closed now reopening? What are you seeing among your members?

As you know, A&S has been holding a call on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and we've been participating in all of those. The Defense Contract Management Agency has really been the clearinghouse for all these companies' challenges, and in fact we've been pushing our member companies that are seeing challenges to go to the website and fill in information about what their challenges are what they're seeing. And DoD has been responsive when something has closed down for whatever reason. Undersecretary Lord herself has picked up the phone to make calls to state governors to explain that we work very hard to ensure that the defense industrial base is considered essential. That was a question when people were starting to call for shelters in place.

The very issues these companies have been seeing are things you're expecting: the result of closures, and sometimes those closures aren't state and local but on installations. Many contractors have to go to work on installations, and installation commanders are the mayors of their bases; they're tasked with the safety and security of their installations, and sometimes they've made the call to close facilities that have an effect on those performing contracts.

There's also a growing concern on liability. There's uncertainty surrounding contractors' liability during the crisis for heeding calls to keep everything turned on. They also have to make sure that they're keeping their workforce safe and secure, and sometimes that's an issue as you look at reopening everything. Our last NDIA survey was really about what kind of things do you need to reopen to get to a new normal, where we're producing on contracts. Access to personal protective equipment is a concern, safety is a concern and more.

DCMA has been following up with those companies to see what those issues are and what would allow them to reopen. We all know the supply chain ― and I'm sure you remember our report on the health of the defense industrial base at the beginning of the year ― but one of the things we highlighted is we have a relatively fragile supply chain already. This is a concern of the associations, the Pentagon and particular House Armed Services Committee members.

Cash flow was also identified as an issue in NDIA's survey, and it's been a feature of DoD's press conferences. Ellen Lord said she was relying on the trade associations to help DoD understand how its accelerated progress payments are trickling down the supply chain to smaller firms, from the primes. How detailed is the information the associations are providing, and are the primes doing what's expected of them?

What I have is anecdotal. It's proprietary data, and our members don't necessarily share that with us. I did get calls from all of the majors asking about accelerating payments through the supply chain, and one company was very explicit that “we have access to capital to get through this, but our supply chain doesn't.” Lockheed Martin has been very public with their commitment, and I know they're worried, and they're incentivized to keep their supply chain healthy because they've got to produce. The companies know their supply chains better than anyone else, so they're incentivized to push those dollars. It's not the amount of money but the velocity, and they understand that.

This is me talking, but what the Pentagon wants to show ― and you've seen multiple groups saying, “not a dime for defense” ― is that the money that's being accelerated to these companies is not going to line anybody's pocket. This is to allow folks to survive. And beyond the national security aspect of this, which we could talk about forever, these are real companies with real people, doing real jobs that are key to our economy. They're as valid as any of the other small businesses that apply for the Paycheck Protection Program. So, ‘not a dime for defense' is I think a very shortsighted bumper sticker, because these are real people developing real capabilities for the defense of our nation.

There have been some progressive lawmakers, as well as the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who have already pushed back on the Pentagon's upcoming request for funding. But more broadly, what would NDIA like to see legislatively in the next stimulus package, including policy―or are your priorities being addressed directly through the Pentagon?

So there's only so much the Pentagon can do without appropriations. What we're looking at ― and we are a 501(c)3, non-lobbying organization, though we engage when asked what we think ― is we think, first off, there needs to be a plus-up in appropriations for FY20. We all know that there's a lot of challenges to performing on contracts right now that are going to extend the length of those contracts. There's been a slowdown in the ability to perform on contracts because of this, and in some cases it has made made delivery on contracts more expensive.

We believe that should be reflected in appropriations, and that shouldn't steal from the future. You know, we have a National Defense Strategy, we have a future-years defense program, there's already president's budget in. We don't think that the FY21 should be paying the increased cost for FY20. So it would be a defense supplemental to cover the extra expense to produce on contract because of COVID-19. That's first and foremost.

The other thing is ― and you may know the Defense Logistics Agency and others, they pay out of a working capital fund. Back in November, DLA stopped following the accelerated payment policy passed by Congress because their working capital fund didn't have the liquidity to make that happen. They backed off to a 30-day instead of a 15-day payout. Well, that was hard enough in November, December, January, February. But you start getting to March with COVID-19, and these folks that have already performed on contract and are waiting to get their money are waiting an extra 15 days because of the lack of liquidity in the working capital funds. That's not acceptable. So another thing we'd like to see is a bump up in the working capital fund so those accelerated payments can start happening the way that Congress intended.

You referenced liability issues. There's been a movement afoot to shield companies from lawsuits as they seek to reopen that's been met with partisan pushback. Are liability protections something NDIA favors?

You have to be very careful because you don't want companies to do something that is not smart or not safe, but you do have to look at it because there's a potential that this is a ripe avenue for liability suits. We would rather see that stemmed up front so we can focus on producing for the war fighter.

On a positive note, are you seeing companies employing any novel solutions to problems stemming from the pandemic?

The Defense Department has a Joint Acquisition Task Force where companies can go and say what they can produce. We have worked with a lot of companies who can do harnesses for parachutes or where they can shift production to make you masks or other PPE. So it's been kind of heartening to see. A lot of small businesses are saying, ‘Hey, we can do this.' And we direct them over to the Joint Acquisition Task Force, which can look at their capabilities and explore those.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/02/interview-ndias-wesley-hallman-on-a-liability-shield-and-other-defense-priorities-for-the-next-stimulus

Sur le même sujet

  • After months of haggling, Lockheed moves on German air defense bid

    17 août 2020 | International, Terrestre

    After months of haggling, Lockheed moves on German air defense bid

    By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — Lockheed Martin and MBDA Deutschland have submitted another bid for Germany's next-generation air defense system, following negotiations throughout the summer that some observers said nearly tanked the project. The “updated proposal,” as the companies called it in a joint statement Friday, presumably will find smooth sailing in the Defence Ministry's upcoming analysis. That is because government officials and company executives already went through extensive discussions in the past few months to iron out sticking points left unresolved in previous bids and re-bids. “In the last months we made progress in further detailing the Integrated Master Schedule, relevant specifications as well as performance simulations to de-risk the future contract,” Thomas Gottschild, managing director at MBDA Deutschland, said in the statement. But there are no guarantees, especially when it comes to the famously circuitous Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem, or TLVS. The program grew out of the now-defunct Medium Extended Air Defense System, which the Pentagon helped fund. Germany wants the weapon to replace its fleet of Patriot batteries. The German Defence Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government in Berlin is under the gun to deliver military programs on time and on budget, especially now that the ministry wants to keep up defense spending despite the economic blow of the coronavirus pandemic. As a result, officials want to place greater financial liability on the contractors in case things go awry. That approach is infused throughout the TLVS contractual categories of “risk” and “terms and conditions,” industry officials previously said, though details are under strict wraps. Executives previously argued the proposed risk distribution is unsuitable for a development-heavy program like TLVS, making Lockheed especially wary of pursuing the deal after all. At the same time, the American defense giant finally needs to sell the program to a government customer if it wants the advertised revolution in missile defense equipment to actually happen. The envisioned weapon will feature a 360-degree sensing and shooting capability, which means operators no longer need to anticipate from which direction aerial threats will likely approach, as was the case with the sectored Patriot system. “TLVS will transform Germany's defense capabilities and set an important precedent in how neighboring nations address persistent global threats for years to come,” Lockheed and MBDA claimed in their joint statement. The German parliament, currently in recess, will have to approve the government's acquisition plan for TLVS — that is, if the industry consortium's newest submission makes the ministry's cut. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/08/14/after-months-of-haggling-lockheed-moves-on-german-air-defense-bid/

  • The US Navy’s surface fleet: Here’s what’s ahead in 2019

    27 décembre 2018 | International, Naval

    The US Navy’s surface fleet: Here’s what’s ahead in 2019

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. surface fleet has a big year in store for 2019, and we're going to start getting more details very soon on what the future has in store for surface warriors. But surface leadership has been dropping clues on where things are going. Here's a handy reference guide for heading into January's Surface Navy Association annual symposium and for what the fleet has up its sleeve for the coming months. Robot wars The Chief of Naval Operations' Surface Navy Director Rear Adm. Ron Boxall forecast what was on his mind at a recent training and simulation conference in Orlando. The focus for Boxall and the N96 shop will be to get more sensors and weapons into the battlespace, distributed and networked, so that a smaller number of larger warships can act as command and control for smaller units. “If you think about what we are trying to do with the surface force, we have large and small surface combatants that will [ultimately make up part of the 355-ship Navy] but we have no requirement for unmanned surface vessels right now, which I see as an absolutely critical part of distributed lethality, distributed maritime operations environment that we are moving into,” Boxall said. “Ultimately I need more nodes out there.” N96 is looking closely at what might be needed for a large unmanned surface vessel, much like the Sea Hunter drone developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. “I think these are what you need to go in the water and carry large things and be more places at less cost,” Boxall said. “So, in that nodal structure, we are looking at them becoming large sensors or large shooters, but we are still working out the requirement.” Developing unmanned vessels for military use was a key component of a recent agreement with NATO forged during the July summit. Future frigate Next year is the crucial year for FFG(X), the year when the Navy finalizes its requirements and puts the first hull out to bid for a 2020 detailed design and construction award. Look for news to creep out on this ship throughout the year but Boxall had some remarks on how it will fit into the fleet now in development. Boxall hinted that the planned 20 hulls may be a low-ball figure, and that he's looking to maybe keep the program going beyond that. “It will be a very capable ship, but it won't have a lot of capacity,” he said. “But it will be able to both sense and shoot and do command and control at a smaller level. It will be a much less expensive platform and I can have more of them.” Training Training is a major focus of Surface Navy boss Vice Adm. Richard Brown, and some ongoing efforts will start to bear fruit in 2019. Earlier in 2018, the Navy reprogrammed $24 million to build a Maritime Skills Training Program, which will be heavily reliant on simulators to bring together officer and enlisted watchstanders from both the bridge and the combat information center to train on equipment and work as a unit. “We've secured the funding for the maritime skills training centers, which is going to do two things: individual officer training through the [officer of the deck training],” Brown said earlier this year. “So that, in conjunction with building out the navigation, seamanship and ship-handling trainers in the fleet concentration areas, will give us integrated bridge and [combat information center] training at the high end. That's my No. 1 priority.” Those facilities will be ready for use by the waterfront in the 2021 time frame, Brown said. Upgrades to existing simulators are being rolled out this month. DDG-1000 Look for news on the future of DDG-1000. The first of the class, the Zumwalt, is wrapping up its combat systems installation in San Diego and will start the process of integrating the three-ship class into the fleet. We're going to find out more about its new mission – surface strike – and how the Navy plans to employ its behemoth new surface combatant. The Navy has pivoted away from its long odyssey to find a use for its advanced gun system, with requirements boss Vice Adm. William Merz saying in testimony in April that the Sisyphean task of getting a working gun on Zumwalt was holding the ship back. “Even at the high cost, we still weren't really getting what we had asked for,” he said. “So what we've elected to do is to separate the gun effort from the ship effort because we really got to the point where now we're holding up the ship.” Instead, efforts are going to focus on getting Zumwalt into the fleet and on the hunt for ships to kill. Large surface combatant Last up, the Large Surface Combatant should start getting some meat on its bones in 2019. Boxall and company are aiming to put the fleet on a course to buy its cruiser and destroyer replacement in 2023 or 2024, which means a request for information from industry could be in the near future. What we know is that, like the small surface combatant, the Navy wants commonality with other nodes in the network. That means a similar radar as on FFG(X), the same combat system and as much overlapping equipment as the fleet can manage to tamp down on compatibility issues and on how much specialized training sailors need to be on one platform or another. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/12/26/the-us-navys-surface-fleet-heres-whats-ahead-in-2019/

  • Lockheed deems first test shot of precision strike missile a success, amid Raytheon delay

    11 décembre 2019 | International, Terrestre

    Lockheed deems first test shot of precision strike missile a success, amid Raytheon delay

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The first test shot of Lockheed Martin's precision strike missile at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, was a success, the company said in a statement. “All test objectives were achieved,” the statement read. The PrSM was fired Dec. 10 from a U.S. Army High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launcher and flew roughly 240 kilometers to the target, the release stated. “Today's success validates all of the hard work our PrSM team has put into the design and development of this missile,” said Gaylia Campbell, the company's vice president of precision fires and combat maneuver systems. “This test flight is the most recent success in a long line of product component and sub-component testing successes conducted as part of our proven development discipline to assure total mission success for our U.S. Army customer.” The test objectives, according to Lockheed, included staying on course and maintaining the trajectory, range and accuracy. The first flight tests for PrSM — meant to replace the Army Tactical Missile System — were delayed until the end of this year due to technical issues, the director in charge of Long-Range Precision Fires modernization, Brig. Gen. John Rafferty, said in July. “There were a couple of technical issues that caused us to delay about 90 days for the flight test," he said. "There was a mishap at a facility that caused some of the delay, followed by Mother Nature ... extreme weather that made repair at that facility near impossible for a period of time.” When pressed for specifics, Rafferty said the mishap was not at a Raytheon or Lockheed facility, but rather a sub-vendor used by both teams. Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have been in a head-to-head competition to deliver a future PrSM missile to the Army. While Lockheed was originally intended to test its missile in flight after Raytheon, the latter defense company experienced technical issues, according to sources, and had to push its flight test from November to early next year. The Army has a goal to initially field a new PrSM in 2023; it is one of the major development efforts within the Army's long-range precision fires portfolio. LRPF is the Army's top modernization priority. The service has accelerated PrSM's fielding timeline by several years and will stick to the baseline requirements for the missile to get there. Each company will have subsequent flight tests after the initial shot to help garner further data for development and refinement, leading the Army to choose a winner. The Army also plans to adjust its maximum range requirement following critical test shots of the two PrSMs. The missile's current maximum range requirement is 499 kilometers, which is the range that was compliant under the now-collapsed Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the United States and Russia. The United States withdrew from the treaty in August, and so the Army no longer has to adhere to the range limit for its missiles. Rafferty said the baseline missile could reach a range of 550 kilometers based on data from both companies competing to build the PrSM. But the Army won't consider adjusting its requirements until each company has observed how their respective missile behaves in real flight tests. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/12/10/lockheed-deems-first-test-shot-of-the-precision-strike-missile-a-success-raytheons-is-delayed

Toutes les nouvelles