Pentagon seeks to classify future year defense spending plans

Sur le même sujet

• 

  30 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  The new Air Force One just racked up its first cost overrun

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing will have to pay $168 million out of pocket to cover increased costs on the VC-25B Air Force One replacement program, the company said Wednesday. Boeing attributed the overrun to “engineering inefficiencies” caused by the impact of COVID-19, but Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith said the program remains on schedule with a projected delivery of the first VC-25B in 2024. However, Boeing's quarterly report to the Security and Exchange Commission noted future risk to the program's cost and schedule as a result of the engineering challenges. “We believe these inefficiencies will result in staffing challenges, schedule inefficiencies and higher costs in the upcoming phases of the program,” the company stated in the report. It was not immediately clear how work on the VC-25B program had been disrupted. “That charge was really associated with COVID-19,” Smith told reporters in an April 29 phone call. “As we have folks working virtually — particularly on the engineering side — as well as that's gone, we certainly experienced some inefficiencies that has caused us to re-evaluate our estimates to complete those efforts. And that's essentially what you saw today in our results and the charge associated with that.” Smith added that although the program team has done a “good job” of managing the program in the face of changes caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic and is “executing very well on many fronts,” Boeing could not mitigate the added cost to the program this financial quarter. Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper said he spoke with Boeing Defense CEO Leanne Caret last night about the problem, but because the issue was “late breaking,” he referred detailed questions to the program office. On Wednesday night, the Air Force released a statement that — like Boeing — attributed the cost increase to “engineering inefficiencies.” Just two weeks ago, Roper praised the progress of the program, which used virtual tools to complete its critical design review in March and wrap up a modification readiness review in April. At the time, the program was on schedule with no disruptions due to COVID-19, he said then. The Air Force One replacement drew considerable attention in 2016 after then-President-elect Donald Trump tweeted that the program was too expensive and should be cancelled unless the cost—then projected as more than $4 billion—came down. In 2018, the Air Force awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price contract to modify two 747s into the VC-25B configuration. " There has not been an increase to the $3.90B firm-fixed price contract with Boeing or the $5.3B VC-25B total acquisition cost," said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. Although the total price of the program is estimated to hit $5.3 billion once ancillary costs such as new hangars and revised technical manuals are included, the fixed-price ceiling on the $3.9 billion deal ensures that Boeing will have to pay for any cost growth incurred while building the two new Air Force Ones. In February, Boeing began making structural changes to two Boeing 747s at its facility in San Antonio, Texas — paving the way for those jets to become VC-25Bs. The jets will also receive upgrades including enhanced electrical power, specialized communication systems, a medical facility, a customized executive interior and autonomous ground operations capabilities. “As planned in the baseline schedule, the next phase of modification is on course to begin in June 2020,” Stefanek said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/29/the-new-air-force-one-just-racked-up-its-first-cost-overrun/

• 

  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/

• 

  10 septembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  3 questions with the EU defense chief on Europe’s future fighters

  By: Sebastian Sprenger PARIS — Underway in Europe are two high-profile sixth-generation aircraft efforts: the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System, and Britain's Tempest fighter. But will they converge? Defense News asked the chief executive of the European Defence Agency, Jorge Domecq, for his take on the future of these programs. It's quite possible the FCAS program by Spain, Germany and France and the British Tempest program will lead to a situation of two fighters. What's your assessment? We'll have to see, but FCAS is not going to be just one platform. It's going to be a system of systems. It will be a very complex program; it will take many years. It will be very important for it to be sustainable, that it has the economies of scale that are necessary. And at the same time, as we have these three initial member states signing up, I do not exclude this would bring on other member states as we go long. What will happen with the Tempest project, I cannot say. But as the person that oversees FCAS, you would like to see some convergence, right? Europe would probably have to see convergence toward having a single system of systems, but as I underlined, it's not an issue of platform. As always, thinking of the competitiveness of the European defense industry, we have to think of program sustainability. Is the next generation of combat aircraft sustainable with several systems of systems in Europe? I have my doubts. Speaking of consolidation, there have been calls to consolidate the defense industry. What is the level of urgency for that? I think the urgency is there. In the next five to 10 years, the defense industry is going to know a real evolution of technology; disruptive technologies are going to change how we do business in defense. That is going to have an impact on the defense industry. The only way forward for defense in general is cooperation. Cooperation is the only way Europe will remain a credible partner in operational terms but also in technology-related industrial terms. That requires we pull together to do as many defense cooperation projects in the future. And the consolidation of the industry will happen around those cooperative endeavors. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/08/3-questions-with-the-eu-defense-chief-on-europes-future-fighters/