19 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

Special US fund to replace Russian equipment in Europe is shifting its strategy

By: Aaron Mehta

WASHINGTON — A U.S. State Department fund to help European nations replace Russian-made weapons with American equipment has expanded to eight countries, but will be eschewing a second wave of funding in favor of targeted investments.

In 2018, the State Department quietly launched a new effort known as the European Recapitalization Incentive Program, or ERIP, a new tool developed alongside U.S. European Command to speed up the process of getting allied nations off Russian gear. The U.S. benefits both strategically — getting partners and allies off Russian equipment to improve interoperability and deny Moscow funds for maintenance — and financially, thanks to the sale of American weapons abroad.

ERIP funds, reprogrammed from unused dollars such as regional Foreign Military Financing, come in one-time bursts to help a country buy American-made alternatives to Russian kit. To get the money, the European nation must pledge to not buy Russian equipment in the future, while also at least matching the dollar value of the ERIP grant with domestic funding.

The initial funding round consisted of six countries, totaling $190 million in reprogrammed fiscal 2017 dollars. As of last May, the State Department was considering a second round of ERIP grants and was at least in early discussions with Latvia about the funding.

But in the time since, the department decided there won't be a second round, but rather ERIP will become a tool best used on a rolling basis. (Discussions with Latvia turned to different pots of money other than ERIP, according to a source.)

“There was a lot of discussions about a second round, but the way it's kind of evolving is, rather than look at it as rounds is, look at it as opportunities,” a senior State Department official told Defense News on condition of anonymity. “It's a tool that we can use when opportunities arise for us to work with a partner to make a difference.”

All told, the department has given out roughly $277 million in ERIP grants in the last two years — but, the official said, those relatively small dollars helped lock in roughly $2.5 billion in U.S. weapons sales. That's a win in “pure economic terms,” the official said, even before getting into the hard-to-quantify policy and political benefits.

“It was a pretty bold decision in trying to help some of these countries acquire a pretty high capability capital intensive, and for some of them it's their first major [Foreign Military Sales] case, period.”

Going forward, there may be tie-in money from EUCOM, which could kick in $1-3 million in small grants to nations that received ERIP dollars in order to help nations with maintenance costs on the newly bought American equipment. That money would likely come from DoD's Section 333 authority.

Asked about that potential. DoD spokesman Lt. Col. Uriah Orland said the department "continues to work closely with the Department of State in the planning of security assistance with our European partner nations that enables them to reduce their dependencies on Russia's defense industry and build and/or sustain their own defense capabilities.”

Targeted, ongoing funding

Bulgaria presents a notable example for how the thinking on ERIP is evolving. The country spent several years debating what fighter jet to purchase, with the finalists coming down to new F-16s from Lockheed Martin, secondhand F-16s from Portugal, Eurofighter Typhoons from Italy and Saab Gripens from Sweden.

As ERIP was envisioned, it would be used only for rotorcraft or ground vehicles. But with the government in Sofia teetering on the edge of rejecting the Lockheed deal, the U.S. State Department stepped in and used $56 million in ERIP dollars to push the F-16s over the edge and finalize a deal that could exceed $1.6 billion in costs.

“For countries where it's a politically contentious issue, whether for economic or political reasons” the fund can help make a deal happen, the official said. “We were able to close that gap with an ERIP grant that enabled them to make the purchase and acquire the capability.”

The second nation to get a targeted ERIP grant has been Lithuania, which in October announced plans to buy six UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters to replace its Soviet-made Mi-8 fleet. The State Department kicked in $30 million of ERIP funding to help complete that deal.

In fact, no one piece of equipment has benefited from ERIP as much as the UH-60, of which three of the eight ERIP grants has helped procure. The eight projects to date are:

Albania: $30 million for UH-60 procurement. The UH-60 is produced by Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin subsidiary.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: $30.7 million for the Bell Huey II.
Croatia: $25 million for Bradley fighting vehicles, manufactured by BAE Systems. Croatia is also working to stand up local maintenance for the equipment.
North Macedonia: $30 million for Stryker vehicles, produced by General Dynamics.
Slovakia: $50 million for UH-60 procurement.
Greece: $25 million earmarked, but the government is still debating what to buy. Likely to either be Bradley vehicles or the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle from Textron. Greece stands out because, as a higher-income nation, they are technically ineligible for Foreign Military Financing dollars, but a political decision was made to support them with ERIP anyway, the official said.
Lithuania: $30 million for UH-60 procurement.
Bulgaria: $56 million for eight Lockheed-produced F-16s.

All of those deals except Greece and Lithuania are under contract, with a letter of request from Lithuania expected in the next few weeks.

As to future opportunities, “we always kind of have our eye open, and we rely on the country teams out in the field to bring us these opportunities and think about them,” the official said. Although at the moment there are no potential ERIP projects in the works.

“We continue to look at the Baltics, we look at the Balkans,” the official said, adding that “countries within Eastern Europe, the Baltics, the Balkans moving towards a new ground mobility or rotorwing systems with something to divest would be our top candidates.”

All of those deals except Greece and Lithuania are under contract, with a letter of request from Lithuania expected in the next few weeks.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/03/18/special-us-fund-to-replace-russian-equipment-in-europe-is-shifting-its-strategy

Sur le même sujet

9 novembre 2020 | International, Terrestre

Lockheed Martin to build mid-range missile prototype for US Army
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin has been chosen to build the U.S. Army's new mid-range missile prototype, landing a nearly $340 million contract to take elements from naval missiles to forge the new weapon, the service's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office announced Nov. 6. Through an other transaction authority agreement, Lockheed will take the Navy's Raytheon-built SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles to put together a Mid-Range Capability, or MRC, prototype that consists of launchers, missiles and a battery operations center, according to an RCCTO statement. A variant of the Tomahawk missile was used in a land-based cruise missile capability test last year. The SM-6 is a long-range, anti-air missile that has a surface mode. This mid-range missile — expected to hit targets at distances beyond 500 kilometers — is to be fielded to an operational battery in fiscal 2023. Defense News first broke the news that the Army was planning to field a mid-range missile capability designed to go after moving targets at land and at sea. The effort is meant to fill a gap in the service's long-range precision fires portfolio in between the future Precision Strike Missile and hypersonic weapons capabilities. The decision came out of a strategic fires study conducted earlier this year that identified the capability gap and the need to rapidly fill it. The RCCTO shortly after adopted the effort to rapidly field the new missile. “Adapting existing systems as much as possible will allow us to move faster than traditional acquisition methods to get this capability into the hands of Soldiers in support of the National Defense Strategy,” Lt. Gen. L. Neil Thurgood, director of hypersonics, directed energy, space and rapid acquisition as well as the RCCTO chief, said in the statement. “Soldier feedback and touchpoints will be embedded throughout the prototyping effort in order to make this system operationally effective the day it is delivered,” he added. To meet the demanding timeline, the MRC prototype “will utilize and modify existing hardware and software from the Army and joint service partners and integrate additional technologies to achieve new operational effects,” the statement read. The Army arrived at the decision to incorporate the SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles after a “broad review of joint service technologies potentially applicable to MRC,” according to the RCCTO. To use the joint service technologies, the Army “will leverage Navy contract vehicles for missile procurement in support of the Army integration [other transaction authority] agreement,” the statement said. “The capability also allows the Army and joint services to synchronize and leverage modernization efforts and investments across mid-range missile programs in support of multi-domain operations,” it added. “The MRC supports one of the Army's chief roles in multi-domain operations: to use strategic fires to penetrate and disintegrate enemy layered defense systems, creating windows of opportunity for exploitation by the joint force.” By 2023, the Army will have begun delivering a portfolio of strategic, mid-range and short-range fires capabilities that will change the paradigm against advanced adversaries Russia and China. The initial fielding of the Precision Strike Missile, capable of hitting targets out to 499 kilometers (with a likelihood of a greater range), will happen in 2023 as well as a ground-launched hypersonic missile. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/11/06/lockheed-martin-to-build-mid-range-missile-prototype-for-us-army
13 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

A bankrupt OneWeb and other troubled space startups could get some help from the Defense Department
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Space Force looks to expand the military's communications capabilities in the far north, it is facing a problem. The global pandemic has hit space startups exponentially hard, and OneWeb, one of the companies aiming to provide internet to Arctic locations, filed for bankruptcy in March. The Defense Department is considering taking action to help fortify OneWeb and other vulnerable space startups, said Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice commander of Headquarters Space Force. “I will say with respect to OneWeb specifically and others, we continue to work,” he said during a May 12 event held by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “We work with the White House and we'll be working with Congress, not just focused on OneWeb but all of the commercial space companies that face bankruptcy and face those concerns.” Thompson did not lay out options under consideration by the Pentagon to aid OneWeb, but he did say the department's Space Acquisition Council devised a list of proposed investments for space companies that need rapid, aggressive action. That capital is needed to ensure emerging space technologies remain available to the U.S. military but also so “that potential adversaries don't have the opportunity to acquire those capabilities,” he said. OneWeb is pursuing a sale of the business as part of bankruptcy proceedings, saying that “while the company was close to obtaining financing” through its own negotiations with investors, “the process did not progress because of the financial impact and market turbulence related to the spread of COVID-19.” So far, the company has launched 74 satellites, secured global spectrum and has half of its 44 ground terminals in development or complete — making it attractive to potential bidders such as Amazon or European satellite company Eutelsat. However, two unnamed Chinese firms have also submitted proposals, according to The Telegraph. That could raise major concerns among Defense Department officials, who have warned that adversary nations — particularly China — could use the financial instability caused by the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to increase investments in technology companies with national security applications. “The [defense-industrial base] is vulnerable to adversarial capital, so we need to ensure that companies can stay in business without losing their technology,” Ellen Lord, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, said in March. If OneWeb is sold to a Chinese owner, the Defense Department could lose access to one of the few suppliers of commercial broadband internet servicing the Arctic. While the Space Force operates two Enhanced Polar System satellites to provide secure, jam-resistant military communications, few commercial satellite providers extend their coverage to the far north. As a result, troops have limited communication options in the Arctic, and the Pentagon has long been concerned about a lack of resiliency. Companies like OneWeb and SpaceX, which intend to create a network of hundreds of small satellites in low-Earth orbit, could change that paradigm by providing low-cost commercial internet services that span the globe. In September, OneWeb announced it would begin to provide low-latency broadband service to the Arctic by the end of 2020, with full, 24-hour coverage expected in 2021. For its part, SpaceX stated that its Starlink constellation would begin providing broadband service this year. The military has expressed interest in working with both companies. U.S. Northern Command sought $130 million to explore OneWeb's and SpaceX's capabilities in order to provide reliable and potentially cost-effective internet in the Arctic, listing the effort on top of the unfunded priority list sent to Congress this spring. Nathan Strout in Washington contributed to this story. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/2020/05/12/a-bankrupt-oneweb-could-get-some-help-from-the-defense-department/
27 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

U.S. Army Upgrades Vision For Future Vertical Lift Programs
Steve Trimble In piecing together a delicate plan to field two advanced rotorcraft simultaneously within a decade, the U.S. Army chose its priorities carefully. The Army could load the first Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) and Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) with advanced new systems and weapons needed for operations in the 2030s or keep to existing or highly mature technologies and field both aircraft years earlier. Ultimately, the Army selected an acquisition strategy based on the latter. Increment 1 versions of the FLRAA and FARA are now scheduled to enter service together in the third quarter of fiscal 2030. More advanced Increment 2 versions of both should enter service in 2034 and 2035, respectively. U.S. Army FVL Vision: Competition, open systems and incremental upgrades Empty weight and costs emerge as early concerns But the key to fielding both increments for each new type on time may depend less on rotor systems and drivetrains than on software architecture and resolving industry concerns about government demands for data rights. In a series of briefings to defense contractors the week of July 13, Army leaders laid out a vision for using the FLRAA and FARA contracts to change the aviation branch's relationship with suppliers. The Army is seeking to make the aircraft and mission systems installed on both as common as possible, with a modular open-systems architecture (MOSA) allowing the service to rapidly upgrade payloads, subsystems and design rights, thereby enabling a perpetual cycle of competitive bidding. Although the Army's commitment to the new industrial model was clear, the service's acquisition leaders acknowledged that such a strategy will force companies at all levels of the supply chain to adopt a new, unproven business model. “Most of you are thinking, ‘OK, a modular systems approach is a nice buzz term, but how do I sell that to a board of directors; how do I sell it to the [company] leadership?' Because I can potentially give up all of the future revenue streams,” says Pat Mason, the program executive officer for Army aviation. “So we owe you greater answers on that, because it's the question that you're asking, and we have to understand your perspective. From that, we then have to develop a clear business case that allows you to move forward.” In purely aircraft performance terms, the FLRAA and FARA requirements do not compromise on performance. Any of the four candidates selected by the Army in March to compete for both contracts—Bell's V-280 and Boeing/Sikorsky's SB-1 for the FLRAA; Bell's 360 Invictus and Sikorsky's Raider X for the FARA—would enter service in 2030 exceeding the 170-kt. speed limit for most conventional helicopters. But despite appearances, speed is not everything in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program that spawned the FLRAA and FARA contract competitions. The FVL initiative is seeking to introduce a revolutionary leap in how the Army acquires the evolving array of software, electronics, sensors and weapons that come with an aircraft and represent an increasingly important share of its overall capability. With schedule and cost driving the acquisition strategy, the Army will seek to deliver the FARA and FLRAA with as many common electronic systems and payloads as possible, along with a MOSA for software. To minimize schedule and cost risk, FARA and FLRAA aircraft entering service in 2030 will be designed with electronics and systems already available or due to reach a high level of maturity by 2024. More advanced systems capabilities still at the laboratory stage mid-decade will be considered for Increment 2 versions of both types. The Increment 2 version of the FLRAA is scheduled for delivery in fiscal 2034. A year later, the FARA program plans to field an Increment 2 version. Limiting development activity during Increment 1 to the airframe is the Army's goal. “One of the key things we're trying to do with Increment 1 is get the ‘truck' right—the vehicle,” says Jason Lucas, the Army's FLRAA technical division chief. “We need to get us an air vehicle platform that can take us into the future. The other thing that we absolutely have to get right is our architecture, and our modular open-system approach to enable us to integrate advanced technologies [and] keep up with the pace of threats. “One of the things you didn't hear me say is that we need to develop a lot of advanced mission system equipment, a lot of new development” in Increment 1, Lucas adds. “We are going to take existing mission equipment.” The Army's risk-averse approach comes after decades of frustration over new aircraft development. Three failed attempts to field a scout helicopter to perform a mission similar to FARA's weigh on current program leaders. Col. Gregory Fortier, FARA project manager, notes that as a younger officer he had been told to expect an assignment in a Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66 squadron, a Bell ARH-70 squadron and an Armed Aerial Scout test squadron. “As we know, those three did not come to fruition,” Fortier says, adding that avoiding a fourth program failure requires having “critical and difficult conversations” with industry up front. Such discussions came up during the industry day event. As a possible consequence of relying on existing maturing systems and payloads for the Increment 1 versions of the FARA and FLRAA, Army program managers are growing concerned about aircraft weight estimates. “I'm still seeing very heavy empty weights across our air vehicles, which I don't enjoy,” says Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, director of the Army's FVL cross-functional team. FLRAA and FARA technology “should be lighter and lower-cost,” he says. “You all may say I'm asking for the impossible, but I think it's nuanced. At the end of the day, we're in a hypercompetitive environment with budgets, and if we don't bring things in that are leap-ahead and fully capture the deflationary nature of the technology and get lighter and cheaper, I think we may find ourselves on the outside looking in.” Another difficult conversation inside the programs concerns the Army's plan to demand ownership of more of the intellectual property and data rights for technologies installed in the aircraft. As each of the armed services seeks a greater share of the ownership rights on future weapon systems, the defense industry is being forced to adapt to a new paradigm in the government-industry relationship. “We realize this runs contrary to some of the legacy business models, such as, ‘Here's a box. We want to integrate it and then we want to sustain it for 30 years,' ” says Michael “Ski” Horrocks, integration project manager for FLRAA and FARA mission systems. “So we do have teams working right now brainstorming how to create new collaborative and sustainable business models.” The in-service date for the FLRAA and FARA may be a decade away, but the Army is already facing critical decision points by year-end. The most important is creation of the FVL Architecture Framework (FAF) to define the interfaces and standards for the common mission systems architecture of both. Last year, the Army stood up a body composed of military, industry and academic experts called the Architecture Control Working Group to deliver the FAF by November 2020 for scheduled approval the following month. “We see Increment 2 as an opportunity to provide advanced mission system solutions to help tackle some of the most significant threats and integrate some innovation,” Lucas says. The Army's schedule calls for selecting the FLRAA developer in fiscal 2023 and the FARA prime contractor in fiscal 2024, with limited user tests of production aircraft beginning for each program four years later. But a lesson from the Army's painful experience with new aircraft development suggests little tolerance for costly technology, even if the contractors can deliver better performance. “We can develop and design and deliver this tremendous capability at the end of this fiscal 2028 timeframe,” Fortier says. “But if it's not affordable, they're walking away from it.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/us-army-upgrades-vision-future-vertical-lift-programs

Toutes les nouvelles