3 octobre 2022 | International, C4ISR

New year, new boss: Pentagon satellite agency joins Space Force

Congress mandated that SDA become part of the Space Force in fiscal 2023 in an effort to align space acquisition under the service.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2022/10/03/meet-the-new-boss-pentagon-satellite-agency-joins-space-force/

Sur le même sujet

  • Japan Could Pick And Choose Components From Tempest

    2 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Japan Could Pick And Choose Components From Tempest

    Bradley Perrett Japan says it wants international collaboration in developing its Future Fighter for the 2030s, but it wants to lead the project despite limited experience in fighter development. And it aims at a fighter much larger than any operated by a western European country ; the U.S. is not offering a possible joint project. That seems to leave only the choice of indigenous development, perhaps with help from a foreign technical partner. Nevertheless, participation in the UK's Tempest program may also be feasible. The Tempest project—which includes the Royal Air Force, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and MBDA—has a cooperation concept that leaves scope for Japan and other partners to use their own systems, weapons, propulsion and even airframes, says Air Commodore Daniel Storr, head of combat aircraft acquisition at the UK Defense Ministry. The model described by Storr gives Japan the flexibility to choose the size of its own fighter. Though evidently not an objective, this mix-and-match approach also creates an opportunity for Japan to continue to claim development leadership—but also to save money by sharing systems. The policy goal of running its own fighter program, stated in 2018, has looked like a big obstacle to Japan's participation in the Tempest or the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project initiated by France and Germany. But if the Future Fighter shared only some features with Tempest, Japan could reasonably say it was leading its own program. BAE Systems promoted the Tempest program at the DSEI Japan exhibition held in Tokyo fromNov. 18-20. Prospective FCAS prime contractors, such as Airbus, did not show their concept. Storr outlined the flexible model of cooperative development at an exhibition conference, but Japanese speakers at that event did not comment on the prospect of Japan joining Tempest. In a Nov. 1 interview with The Financial Times, newly appointed Defense Minister Taro Kono seemed to play down the possibility of participation in a European program, saying Japan should explore all possibilities but needed to maintain interoperability with U.S. forces. Storr addressed that point, emphasizing that working with the U.S. was a high priority for the UK too. Japan's alternative to international cooperation is developing a fighter by itself with the technical help of a foreign company. Lockheed Martin is supporting the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X and BAE is helping the Turkish Aerospace Industries TF-X in such an arrangement. By working with Lockheed Martin, Boeing or Northrop Grumman, Tokyo would partially compensate the U.S. for its expenditures in defending Japan. But the U.S. would gain little from technical support fees, and Japan is already committed to buying 147 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings as the aircraft to precede the Future Fighters. The defense ministry has asked for the development of the Future Fighter to be launched in the fiscal year beginning April 2020. It is not clear whether that means mobilizing resources to commence full-scale development or taking some lesser step to firm up the commitment to create the aircraft. For the past year, the government's policy has been to launch no later than March 2024. However, Japanese companies, especially fighter builder Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), are pushing for a launch as soon as possible. They want to transfer knowledge to young engineers from the older generation that developed Japan's last fighter, the MHI F-2, which the Future Fighter will replace. The UK does not want to commit to launching full-scale development of the Tempest before 2025, but its date for entry into service in 2035 meets Japan's objective, which is sometime in the 2030s. Meanwhile, the FCAS program is aiming at 2040. Sweden and Italy are cooperating with the UK during the current early stage of Tempest research, while Spain has joined France and Germany for FCAS work. Like Storr, BAE has stressed the advantages of partners taking only as much of the Tempest as they want. “There is a range of different partnership models that can be considered,” says Andy Latham, who is working on the program. “Japan has some great technology that any partner can benefit from. Their avionics industry is pretty effective.” The cooperation concept replaces the standard model, one in which partners spend years negotiating and compromising to define a design that all of them must accept. Instead, according to Storr, they can save time and money by agreeing to disagree—to the extent that each is willing to pay the extra cost of independent development and manufacturing of design elements. The Japanese defense ministry's studies point to a need for a very big fighter with an empty weight well above 20 metric tons (40,000 lb.), larger than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Superior endurance and internal weapon capacity are the key factors behind this choice. No western European country has operated a fighter more than about two-thirds as big, but Storr said a large configuration for the Tempest cannot be ruled out. The mockup exhibited at the 2018 Farnborough International Airshow was bigger than the F-22. Still, the UK and other European partners might want a much smaller fighter; concept designs that have not been shown are not as big as the mockup. But the concept for cooperation would allow for Japan to devise its own airframe while, for example, using the same engine and some weapons, software and avionics as other partners. The architecture of the software is intended to be open, accepting different programs easily. Tempest researchers will consider which systems and capabilities will go into the fighter and which will be incorporated into the ammunition or an accompanying drone, which could be fully reusable or optionally expendable, Storr says. The FCAS program is taking a similar approach. The Tempest will need great capacity for generating electricity, he says, and the weapon bay should be regarded as a payload bay, perhaps for holding additional fuel that would extend endurance on surveillance missions. The Japanese finance ministry is insisting upon private investment in the Future Fighter program, in part to ensure contractors are fully incentivized to prevent failure. Contractors will be able to make money in civil programs from technology developed for the fighter, says the ministry, which is highly influential but does not have a final say. “Judging from past program examples, it is clear that the Future Fighter program would bring a risk of a budget overrun and schedule slippage, but would also benefit the private sector,” the finance ministry said in an October presentation to the Council on Fiscal Policy, an advisory body. “The government and private sector should invest funds and resources to build a failure-proof framework.” Noting that MHI used technology from the F-2 program in its development and manufacturing of the outer wing boxes of the Boeing 787, the ministry says contractors can expect to gain similar opportunities for civil applications of technology from the Future Fighter program—so they should invest in it. https://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-could-pick-and-choose-components-tempest

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - January 2, 2019

    3 janvier 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - January 2, 2019

    NAVY Risk Mitigation Consulting Inc.,* Destin, Florida, is awarded a maximum amount $95,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for mission assurance assessments of installation/facilities infrastructure and facility-related control systems for the Department of the Navy . The work includes, but is not limited to the collection and evaluation of data concerning the criticality of facilities, utilities, industrial control systems, and supporting infrastructure based on mission impacts, probable threats and hazards, and degrees of vulnerability to determine the overall risk posture of the asset. Work will be performed at various Navy and Marine Corps installations at various locations within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic area of responsibility, both inside and outside the continentalU.S., including, but not limited to, California (24.6 percent); Virginia (13.0 percent); Florida (10.1 percent); Maryland (7.2 percent); Washington (5.8 percent); Hawaii (4.3 percent); Texas (4.3 percent); South Carolina (4.3 percent); Washington, District of Columbia (2.9 percent); North Carolina (2.9 percent); Mississippi (2.9 percent); Georgia (2.9 percent); Tennessee (1.5 percent); Rhode Island (1.5 percent); Pennsylvania (1.5 percent); New York (1.5 percent); New Jersey (1.5 percent); Louisiana (1.5 percent); Indiana (1.5 percent); Illinois (1.5 percent); Connecticut (1.4 percent); and Arizona (1.4 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of January 1, 2024. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $10,000 are obligated on this award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Future task orders will be primarily funded by operations and maintenance (Navy and Marine Corps). This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website and Federal Business Opportunities website, with six proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N62470-19-D-2002). Raytheon Co., El Segundo, California, was awarded $81,224,627 for modification P00007 to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive=-firm-target contract (N00019-17-C-0042). This modification provides for the procurement of 228 configuration components required for completion of Configuration D Retrofit Component engineering change proposals for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the Navy and the government of Australia. Work will be performed in Forest, Mississippi (53 percent); Andover, Massachusetts (36 percent); and El Segundo, California (11 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2022. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy); and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) funds in the amount of $81,224,627 will be obligated at time of award. No funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchases for the Navy ($80,692,484; 99 percent) and the government of Australia ($532,143; 1 percent) under the FMS program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin, Rotary and Mission Systems, Moorestown, New Jersey, is awarded a $28,882,337 cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-16-C-5102 for AEGIS Baseline 9 Integration and Delivery, TI-08 CG Upgrade, AEGIS Baseline 9 Capability Development, Capability Improvements, Baseline 9 Sea Based Non-Cooperative Target Recognition Development and Radar Engineering. Work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey, and is expected to be complete by July 2019. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy); fiscal 2013 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy); 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy); and 2019 weapons procurement (Navy), funding in the amount of $28,882,337 will be obligated at time of award and funds in the amount of $1,530,764 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Bell-Boeing JPO, Amarillo, Texas, is being awarded $23,325,145 for cost-plus- fixed-fee delivery order N0001918F5004 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-17-G-0002) in support of the V-22. This order provides support of ongoing flight test and evaluation of the V-22 test aircraft. Work will be performed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (90 percent); and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2018. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement (Navy); and fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $23,325,145 will be obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. SRA International Inc., Chantilly, Virginia, was awarded an $11,336,940 firm-fixed-price contract for command, control, communications, and computer system afloat operations and sustainment support for capabilities aboard the Military Sealift Command (MSC) fleet of ships, and the MSC network operations centers. This contract includes a six-month period of performance. Work will be performed in Norfolk, Virginia, and work is scheduled to commence Jan. 1, 2019, and is scheduled to be completed June 30, 2019. This contract will be funded with Navy working capital funds; and U.S. Transportation Command working capital funds. Funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was awarded as an other than full and open requirement under unusual and compelling urgency procedures. Only one offer was solicited and received. The Navy's Military Sealift Command, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity. (N3220519C1000) (Awarded Dec. 31, 2018) Structural Associates Inc., * East Syracuse, New York, is awarded $10,008,000 for firm-fixed-price task order N4008519F4299 under a previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N40085-17-D-5048) for repairs for insulator shop relocation Building 166 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The work to be performed provides building repairs and modernization to the historic 1941 Building 166. Exterior envelope repairs and replacement will include, but are not be limited to, roofing and wall systems, trim, windows and window systems, skylights, door repairs, concrete, the installation of roof and wall insulation, and reconfiguration of the building entrance to provide accessibility. Interior repair and renovation includes, but is not limited to, reconfiguration of existing toilet facilities, the renovation of electrical and plumbing systems, the replacement of deteriorated heating ventilation and air conditioning equipment and controls, and the modernization of fire protection systems. Work will include egress paths in order to improve space utilization, accessibility and life safety. The task order also contains five unexercised options, which, if exercised, would increase cumulative task order value to $10,691,110. Work will be performed in Kittery, Maine, and is expected to be completed by March 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $10,008,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Four proposals were received for this task order. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity. Correction: Contract awarded on Dec. 27, 2018 to Bell Boeing JPO, Amarillo, Texas, was announced with the incorrect award amount and contracting activity. The contract should have stated the award amount of $ $24,448,390 and that the contracting activity is the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey. All other contract information is correct. ARMY O'gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Co. LLC,* Fairfield, Ohio, was awarded a $60,736,752 firm-fixed-price contract to procure Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles protection kits. Bids were solicited via the internet with six received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-19-D-0041). Endeavor Robotics Inc., Chelmsford, Massachusetts, was awarded a $32,400,000 firm-fixed-price contract for reset, sustainment, maintenance, and recap parts for Robot Logistics Support Center technicians to support the overall sustainment actions of the entire Endeavor family of small, medium, and large robots. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 2, 2024. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-19-D-0031). CORRECTION: An $89,520,585 modification (0053 09) to contract W52P1J-11-G-0053 awarded to BAE Systems Ordnance Systems Inc., Radford, Virginia, announced Dec. 31, 2018, listed the wrong amount of funds obligated. The correct amount of obligated funds is $7,895,422. All other information in the announcement was correct. AIR FORCE BAE Systems Information and Electronics Systems Integration, Nashua, New Hampshire (FA8604-19-D-4021); The Boeing Co., Defense, Space & Security, St. Louis, Missouri (FA8604-19-D-4022); General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.(GS-ASI), Poway, California (FA8604-19-D-4020); Goodrich Corp., UTC Aerospace Systems, ISR Systems, Westford, Massachusetts (FA8604-19-D-4023); Harris Corp., Electronic Systems, Integrated Electronic Warfare Systems, Clifton, New Jersey (FA8604-19-D-4027); Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas (FA8604-19-D-4026); Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Melbourne, Florida (FA8604-19-D-4024); and Raytheon Co., Raytheon, El Segundo, California (FA8604-19-D-40250), have been awarded $22,500,000 ceiling indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for the formation of a collaborative working group of various industry partners to work as single extended entity to develop, evolve, update via pre-planned product improvement initiatives, as well as manage and provide configuration control of the open mission systems and universal command and control interface standards, collectively referred to as the Open Architecture Standards. These contracts provide for the development, updating and management of the above standards with the following business goals, promote adaptability, flexibility, and expandability; support a variety of missions and domains; simplify integration; reduce technical risk and overall cost of ownership of weapon system programs; enable affordable technology refresh and capability evolution; enable reuse; enable independent development and deployment of system elements; and accommodate a range of cybersecurity approaches. Work will be performed at the industry partner facilities in Nashua, New Hampshire; St. Louis, Poway, California; Westford Massachusetts; Clifton New Hampshire; Fort Worth, Texas; and Melbourne, Florida, and is expected to be complete by December 31, 2022. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Air Force Life Cycle Management, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1723366/

  • Opinion: How The 2020 Election Is Likely To Affect Defense

    22 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Opinion: How The 2020 Election Is Likely To Affect Defense

    By Byron Callan Unlike in the U.S. health care or energy sectors, it is so far hard to discern much of a stock market reaction for the defense sector in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. election. There has not been the equivalent of issues such as Medicare for all or fracking that has grabbed the attention of defense investors. That might be because defense and security issues have been absent from the debates so far, and Democratic candidates have put forth few detailed defense and foreign policy plans and proposals. It is way too soon to act with conviction on the potential outcomes of the 2020 election and their implications for defense. Polls can and will change. The likely Democratic presidential candidate may not be known until April, when most of the primaries are completed, or July 2020, when the party holds its convention. And it remains to be seen how that candidate will fare against President Donald Trump, presuming he is not removed from office. Still, leaders at defense companies and analysts have to assess potential outcomes and what they may entail for 2021 and beyond. The current consensus is that there likely will be split-party control of Congress and the White House in 2021-22. The House probably will remain in Democratic control, but the Republicans may retain a slim majority in the Senate, given the number of “safe” seats they will defend. Democrats might sweep in, but they are very unlikely to gain a 60-seat majority, and it is arguable that if they do not, the chamber will vote to do away with cloture, which gives the minority party in the Senate power to shape and channel legislation. This alone should temper expectations that there will be radical changes for defense. Moreover, the day after the 2020 election, both parties will have their eyes on the 2022 election, when 12 Democratic and 22 Republican seats will be contested. If Trump is reelected, the simplest path forward will be to conclude that current defense policies will remain in place. Congress has not been willing to approve the deep nondefense discretionary cuts the administration has proposed for 2017-19, and it is not clear what would change this posture in 2021-22. Barring a major change in the global security outlook, U.S. defense spending may thus remain hemmed in by debt/deficit concerns and demands for parity in increases of nondefense spending. Trump is likely to continue to browbeat allies in Europe and Asia to spend more on defense. The Pentagon will push ahead with its current major modernization and technology priorities, including artificial intelligence, directed energy and hypersonics, and there should be some continuity with civilian leadership at the Pentagon. However, the global security outlook may be the biggest variable for the sector to assess. Iran has not shown any readiness to bow to U.S. “maximum pressure,” and North Korea has not denuclearized. How Russia and China respond to the prospects of another four years of Trump also has to be weighed. NATO and other alliances also may be under more stress. And inevitably, there are likely to be new security issues in the early 2020s that are not top of mind or even conceivable today. There are a range of defense views and perspectives among the leading Democratic candidates. The views of the two most progressive candidates—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—could be viewed as potentially the most disruptive for defense. Warren, in particular, has emphasized her view of “agency capture” by major U.S. contractors, and her health care plan is to be paid for in part by a $798 billion cut to defense spending over 10 years, though the baseline of those cuts has not been stipulated. If a progressive candidate appears to do well in the Democratic nomination process and in polling against Trump, however, it will be useful to recall the congressional dynamic noted above. Congress could act as a firewall against steeper cuts and sweeping change. Equally, it is useful to recall that what candidates promise is not always what they do once they are in office. A more moderate, centrist Democratic candidate such as former Vice President Joe Biden or South Bend, Illinois, Mayor Pete Buttigieg may appear benign for defense and will very likely face the same geopolitical security challenges that Trump could face. If there is a shift back toward a U.S. promotion of democracy and human rights, that could affect recent international defense export patterns and raise tensions with China, Russia and other autocratic regimes. Probably, there will be a bigger debate over nuclear strategic forces modernization, the role of technology in defense and whether it can deliver credible military capability and deterrence at lower cost. Even if U.S. defense spending evidences little real growth in the early 2020s, these factors could be the most important for contractors to navigate. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-how-2020-election-likely-affect-defense

Toutes les nouvelles