20 juin 2018 | International, Naval
WASHINGTON — The Navy's acquisition boss, aiming to get his arms around the long-term maintenance and ownership costs of the world's most complex fleet, has directed Naval Sea Systems Command to undertake an ambitious long-term plan for all the ships in the fleet.
James “Hondo” Geurts, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, has asked NAVSEA to compile a 30-year ship repair and maintenance plan that he intends to roll out alongside the annual shipbuilding plan.
“The idea is, we have this 30-year shipbuilding plan, that's only as good as our ability to repair and modernize those ships once we build them,” Geurts told a gaggle of reporters Tuesday. “So what we'd like to do is create the companion plan that takes the shipbuilding plan and what we have in inventory, then forecast and plan for all the repair and modernizations that we'll have to do.”
The Navy wants to have an idea, as it looks down to road, if it has the needed industrial capacity and infrastructure in place to meet the fleet's needs, which will become especially important as the fleet builds up.
In fact, the Navy struggles to adequately maintain the smaller fleet it has today. In testimony last week, NAVSEA head Vice Adm. Thomas Moore told House lawmakers that the net capacity private shipyards that handle surface ship maintenance was only 75 percent of what the Navy required.
During the past decade, the increasing demands on a smaller fleet drove deployment lengths to nine months or longer, which racked up a readiness deficit that the Navy is still working through. Deployment lengths have come back down closer to seven months, but the unpredictable operations tempo made it difficult for the Navy to plan yards periods and impacted the business of the private shipyards.
Geurts conceded that operations will undoubtedly impact a 30-year maintenance schedule but said having it on paper was the right place to start when managing complicated schedules.
“It's a very complex issue with inputs and outputs,” Geurts said. “But the only thing I know is the best way to get after a complex issue is laying out at least what you know and having that at least as a baseline so then when you have to do changes – for operational reasons of whatever — you are changing from a known baseline and you can understand quickly what the second and third order effects are. Like we do on new construction, I'd like to introduce that kind of rigor.”
Ultimately the hope is that industry can plan better with a long-term plan in place, Geurts said.
“My hope is if we can do that, industry can start planning resources, they can start hiring resources when they see the signal,” he said. “Right now we are not as well positioned in the future as I'd like to be.”
22 mars 2021 | International, Aérospatial
Capital pour la coopération européenne en matière de défense, le projet de Système de combat aérien futur (SCAF) est fragilisé, alors que les parties prenantes (pays participants et géants de la défense)
23 novembre 2022 | International, Aérospatial
The Royal Air Force, Airbus and other industry partners have carried out the world’s first 100 percent sustainable aviation fuel flight using an in-service military aircraft.
7 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
By: Nathan Strout Military leaders are reluctant to treat the electromagnetic spectrum as a separate domain of warfare as they do with air, land, sea, space and cyber, even as the service increasingly recognize the importance of superiority in this area. At the Association of Old Crows conference Oct. 30, representatives from the Army, Navy and Air Force weighed in on a lingering debate: whether the electromagnetic spectrum should be considered its own domain. In short, while the spectrum can legitimately be described as a physically distinct domain, it does not make sense logistically for the Department of Defense to declare it a separate domain of warfare, they said. “It's something that we've had a lot of discussion about ... In one way, you can argue that the physical nature of the electromagnetic spectrum, the physical nature of it being a domain. However, I understand the implications and those are different challenges for a large organization like the Department of Defense. So I think that there's a little bit of a different discussion when you talk about domain and what that implies for the Department of Defense and each of the departments in a different way,” said Brig. Gen. David Gaedecke, director of electromagnetic spectrum superiority for the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements. Regardless of whether it's an independent domain, military leaders made clear that leveraging the electromagnetic spectrum is a priority for every department and every platform. “We're going to operate from strategic down to tactical, and EMS ... is going to enable all of our forces to communicate and maneuver effectively, so we'll have a layered approach across all the domains that we operate in,” said Laurence Mixon from the Army's Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors. “EMS is definitely an aspect of the operational environment that every tactician has to be aware of, understand and leverage. And on the acquisition side we have to consider EMS when we are developing every one of our systems. I think since EMS crosses all of the domains that we currently have today that we identify and use in the joint parlance--I don't think the Army is ready to call it a domain." Similarly, while the Navy is working to understand how EMS works best within the maritime domain, Rear Adm. Steve Parode, director of the Navy's Warfare Integration Directorate, N2/N6F, indicated that there was no rush to declare EMS a separate domain. “For the Navy, we're pretty comfortable with the way we are into the maritime domain as our principal operational sphere. We are working through understanding the EMS and the way it relates to physical properties in that domain. We know where we're strong and we know where we're weak. And we understand principally why we're weak. We're making decisions about how to get better,” said Parode. https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2019/11/06/should-the-military-treat-the-electromagnetic-spectrum-as-its-own-domain/