22 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

Pentagon acquisition boss talks industry, mergers and coronavirus

WASHINGTON — A longtime industry executive, Ellen Lord was confirmed as the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment in August 2017. In that role, Lord — who is now the longest serving political appointee at the department from the Trump administration — oversees billions of dollars in weapons procurement and sustainment, while also overseeing the health of the defense industrial base, a particularly important role in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lord was a keynote speaker at this year's Defense News Conference, where she touched on a number of issues affecting the Department of Defense. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

We're about six months after COVID-19 first hit the defense industry. How do you judge the health of the defense industrial base?

We use the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency to track about 22,000 key companies that the department works with. And going back over the last six months, we did have hundreds of companies shut down, but now we're down to only about 30. So that's very, very good news. We monitor them on a daily basis; we look at on-time deliveries, deliveries missed and, most importantly, we listen to what the issues are, really leveraging the industry associations to do a lot of listening.

What we are looking for is whether or not we're maintaining war-fighter readiness for our production programs, and then relative to modernization, whether we are hitting key milestones relative to development programs. We have seen some slowdowns. We are carefully monitoring, using monthly metrics, where we are. That's something that I'm actually extremely proud of the team over the last few years — we have developed a very data-driven way of doing business.

The Pentagon is seeking billions of dollars from Congress to help fund reimbursements for the defense industry's pandemic-related costs. But we've heard criticism of this from a number of sectors, with some saying financial reports last quarter were not so bad. Why is that funding needed, and why now?

All the [quarterly] reports that have come out in large part don't reflect the hits that were taken by business. I would contend that most of the effects of COVID-19 haven't yet been seen because most companies gave their employees time off, they stretched out production, paid a lot of people for working 100 percent when perhaps they were only getting 50 percent of the hours in and so forth. So I think the system has absorbed it up to this point in time. Now when we get to the point where we're having payments and incentive fees and award fees earned, and if we haven't done the deliveries, that's where you're going to see the hit. So I believe there's a bit of a delayed response.

We want to make sure that we have a one-time accounting for these major COVID hits — very, very well defined in terms of a period of time, March 15-Sept. 15, that we take a very, very data driven approach [saying]: “Send us a proposal showing what the impact was; we will assess them all at once and get back.”

However, we can't do that at this point in time because we have an authorization through Section 3610 [of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act] and so forth, but we don't have an appropriation. We believe we need that appropriation to maintain readiness because if we do not get that, what we are going to find is we are not going to get the number of units delivered, we are not going to maintain war-fighter readiness, we're not going to move forward in modernization. We would like to take the one-time hit and then see where we go from there.

Assuming you get the appropriation, much money is needed? When will industry see it?

We think it's somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion. We think it would take five to six months because once we got an appropriation, we would go out for a request for proposals, and the larger companies are going to have to flow down those RFPs through their supply chain, gather the data — because again, this has to be a very data-driven drill. So we would get all of that back; we think that would take two to three months. Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once. It isn't going to be a first-in, first-out [situation], and we have to rationalize using the rules we've put in place, what would be reimbursable and what's not. So overall we think five to six months, in terms of a process.

We're at about the two-year mark from the executive order 13806 study, which assessed the health of the defense industrial base and included some dire warnings about the supply chain. How has work on fixing those issues gone?

We had several areas that we pointed out were problematic, that we were concerned that the U.S. had too great of a dependency on non-friendly nations and that we just didn't have the security and resiliency that we were looking for. In fiscal 2019, we actually had 14 presidential determinations, which is the process you go through to actually say: “Yes, these are areas that are worthy of looking at.” Then we go to get the appropriation to be able to use [the Defense Production Act's Title III authorities]. A number of the areas we looked at were small unmanned aerial systems, rare earth [minerals], that type of thing.

When COVID-19 hit, it shone a spotlight on the concern we had with this fragility and helped us tell the story. Because of another executive order coming in declaring a federal emergency, we no longer had to go through the presidential determination route, which is a bit time consuming, to identify areas where we needed to invest.

Then [with the pandemic] we had new areas bubble up, probably the most significant of which was aviation propulsion, where we have a number of our key suppliers who are extremely dependent on commercial aviation that was grinding almost to a halt for a while — huge impacts there. So what we did was we were now able to move a little bit more quickly, which is always helpful. And we made a number of awards to aviation companies that literally kept those companies in business, which allowed us to continue to support the war fighter.

COVID-19 has helped us accelerate some of those areas. Others are perhaps not getting as much attention as they were pre-COVID-19, looking at our defense industrial base for nuclear modernization for instance, also for hypersonics. But overall, the team is working very hard, and we have put out almost a billion dollars in DPA Title III over the last six months.

It sounds like the pandemic may have been beneficial in addressing these long-term issues.

What it did was allow us to really put speed in the system, peel away all of what I would call the non-value-added bureaucracy. COVID-19 gave us a burning platform to really demonstrate we could be very responsible in terms of taxpayer dollars, very responsible in terms of security of the war fighter, but move at the speed of relevance to get things done. So I don't want to backslide there. And I want to make sure we really take advantage of all of that.

Companies are concerned about being in compliance with the Section 889 rules, which prohibit the government from buying a system that might have Chinese equipment in it from the telecommunications supply chain. Are more waivers for companies possible?

We are incredibly supportive of making sure that we don't have Chinese technology in a lot of our telecom systems, which has proven to be a problem in terms of exfiltration of data. So what we did is we got a waiver from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] for noncritical weapon systems. We continue to discuss an extension beyond September of that with them. We are getting waivers on a case-by-case basis, we will look at those. However, we are encouraging industry and we are very, very pleased at how we see industry still stepping up to really get these systems out of their supply chains. So it will be by exception that we will do waivers, and we are looking to really have a clean path through everything.

There have been significant mergers and acquisitions during your tenure at the Pentagon. Are you seeing a downside for the department, given the desire for more competition on programs?

I actually put a process in place early on, when we are notified of M&A deals, that we go out very formally to all the services and agencies and ask for objective evidence as to whether or not these mergers or acquisitions will constrain competition in any way. We then work very, very closely with either [the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department] on those deals to make sure there are divestitures if needed.

Where I'm really focused, and the team is focused, is really getting the small companies going. That's where the predominance of our innovation comes from. That's what bubbles up to these larger companies. So we are holding all kinds of webinars and meetings connecting not only our traditional defense industrial base, small company partners, but nontraditional [firms] with our DoD efforts. We're partnering with the services to get more of that activity. So we want that diverse group coming in, and I'm really excited about what I see coming up through.

That doesn't sound like you have many concerns about what you've seen.

We watch very carefully. And at this point, we think we've made some smart divestitures on some of those. And we like competition. It's our friend.

https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2020/09/21/pentagon-acquisition-boss-talks-industry-mergers-and-coronavirus/

Sur le même sujet

  • Lockheed-Boeing team pitch Defiant X, its candidate for the Army’s long-range assault helo competition

    26 janvier 2021 | International, Terrestre

    Lockheed-Boeing team pitch Defiant X, its candidate for the Army’s long-range assault helo competition

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin-owned Sikorsky and Boeing have pitched a tweaked version of the team's coaxial technology demonstrator — the SB-1 Defiant — which it plans to submit for the U.S. Army's Future Long-Range Assault (FLRAA) competition, according to the companies. The modified, competition-ready aircraft design is being called Defiant X, taking the same surname as little brother Raider X, which is Lockheed's submission for the Army's other helicopter competition — the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program — running nearly in parallel. Both aircraft build off and scale up from Sikorsky's X2 demonstrator which flew for the first time in 2008. Lockheed Martin came out with Raider X roughly two years ago at the Association of the U.S Army's annual trade show. “One thing that always comes out is the importance of this aircraft at the X,” Tim Malia, Sikorsky's FARA director, said at the time. “The ‘X' is defined by the Army as the terminal area where they actually have to go do the work, do the reconnaissance, do the attack mission. The operation at the X is really critical for this program and for this platform.” And according to the Lockheed-Boeing team, it's no different with Defiant. Modernizing its vertical lift fleet is the Army's third-highest priority behind Long-Range Precision Fires and Next-Generation Combat Vehicle development. The Army intends to field both a FLRAA and FARA by roughly 2030. Defiant X made its public debut Jan. 25 featuring changes to the outer mold line compared to the demonstrator airframe, such as a sharper nose cone; a tricycle-style landing gear; changes to the exhaust system and an integrated mission systems package. The “enhancements to the design” are born from roughly 1,500 hours running algorithms in a systems integration lab, 135 hours logged in the Propulsion Systems Test Bed, and 31 flights, adding up to 26 hours of flight time, the companies reported. Some of the changes to the airframe were made to reduce thermal signature and improve aerodynamic handling. The exhaust system alterations also reduce thermal signature, the team conveyed. The landing gear changes are meant to improve stability, landing and taxiing in combat and more austere environments, according to the companies. Adding integrated mission systems is a requirement for the FLRAA competition in order to upgrade and continuously improve aircraft capability through a modular open system architecture. The MOSA will allow the systems to stay relevant in a Joint All Domain Operations environment and on the battlefield in 2035 and beyond. Defiant X will also come with “fly-by-wire flight controls integrated with autonomy capability leading to safety and workload reduction for the crew and operations in complex and degraded visual environments,” the team noted. Lockheed and Boeing are claiming that, as of now, Defiant X is the only offering that can sling-load equipment during missions “at an operationally relevant distance.” “One of the key words here is versatility,” Heather McBryan, Boeing's director of sales and marketing for future vertical lift, told reporters during a Jan. 22 roundtable held in advance of Defiant X's public debut. “Although the FLRAA mission is about more than just flying fast, and although we know the pacing mission is the air assault mission, this aircraft is going to be asked to do a whole lot of other things on a daily basis and our design and capability really provides that extreme lifting power for those types of missions.” To date, the SB-1 Defiant helicopter — as part of the Army's technology demonstration and the ongoing follow-on competitive risk reduction effort — has reached 211 knots in straight-and-level flight and 232 knots in a descent. “During the [competitive development and risk reduction], we've done hundreds of trade studies to refine this transformational capability and worked closely with our Army partner,” Jay Macklin, director of Future Vertical Lift business development with Sikorsky, said in the same call with reporters. “The design you're going to see today is a result of those studies. The CDRR has provided a great vehicle to share data back and forth to help the Army again understand and come to a decision on exactly what they are looking for,” he said. The team, according to Macklin, continue to also run tests in a digital combat environment that allows the ability to look at and test designs and maintenance procedures, fly and run operational analysis in order to ensure the best design. While Defiant X came out looking a certain way, according to newly released renderings and animations, that doesn't necessarily mean something won't change before the actual aircraft is built and ready to fly, according to McBryan. The Army released a draft request for proposals in December for FLRAA, announcing its unsurprising intentions to limit the competition to the Sikorsky-Boeing team and Bell because they are the only ones that can meet all of the service's technical and production requirements after spending years building and flying Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator aircraft meant to help define requirements and the realm of the possible for a next-generation medium-sized helicopter. Bell is expected to submit a tiltrotor that would likely not stray too far from its V-280 Valor aircraft flown in the technology demonstration. Bell's demonstrator first flew in December 2017. Defiant took longer to get off the ground due to challenges in manufacturing its complex rotor blades. Defiant's first flight took place in March 2019. The Army is plans to drop the RFP in fiscal 2021, with plans to choose a winner to produce the aircraft in FY22. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/01/25/lockheed-boeing-team-pitch-defiant-x-its-candidate-for-the-armys-long-range-assault-helo-competition

  • Turkey to make its own maritime missile-launching system after sanctions interrupt Lockheed plans

    5 juillet 2021 | International, Naval

    Turkey to make its own maritime missile-launching system after sanctions interrupt Lockheed plans

    Turkish defense company Roketsan is to develop a vertical launching system for the country’s first locally made frigate, after American sanctions disrupted original procurement plans, said naval platforms acquisition official Alper Kose.

  • New Wright-Pat facility aims to improve cyber defenses of fighters and bombers

    19 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Autre défense

    New Wright-Pat facility aims to improve cyber defenses of fighters and bombers

    By: Diana Stancy Correll The Air Force has opened a $1.5 million facility designed to improve the fighter and bomber fleets' cyber defenses against adversaries. The new work area will provide a collaborative space for acquisition professionals to learn about current and emerging threats and better protect against them. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center's Fighters and Bombers Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio unveiled the facility during a July 9 ribbon cutting ceremony. “We are in an age where we have a very sophisticated threat and an adversary that is really trying to get into all of our systems,” Brig. Gen. Heath Collins, fighters and bombers program executive officer, said in a recent Air Force news release. “This facility is absolutely going to be at the core of how we protect our systems moving forward.” Joseph Bradley, director of the Cyber Resiliency Office for Weapons Systems, which provided funding and expertise for the project, called it a “key component of the CROWS mission” and said it will boost the Air Force's collaboration and ability to tackle challenges. The facility isn't the only one that CROWS intends to help launch. According to the Air Force, CROWS wants to set up similar facilities at development, acquisition and sustainment centers over the next five years. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/07/16/new-wright-pat-facility-aims-to-improve-cyber-defenses-of-fighters-and-bombers/

Toutes les nouvelles