19 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial
By: Valerie Insinna
WASHINGTON — During a Thursday morning cable news appearance, U.S. President Donald Trump blasted the F-35's global supply chain and hinted he might intercede to bring more work on the Lockheed Martin-made jet back to the United States.
Trump brought up the F-35 during an exchange where Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo asked how the president plans to incentivize key U.S. industries — such as pharmaceutical companies — to cut China out of their supply chain.
“I could tell you hundreds of stories of the stupidity that I've seen. As an example, we're making a fighter jet. It's a certain fighter jet, I won't tell you which, but it happens to be the F-35,” Trump said.
“It's a great jet, and we make parts for this jet all over the world. We make them in Turkey, we make them here, we're going to make them there. All because President [Barack] Obama and others — I'm not just blaming him — thought it was a wonderful thing,” he said. “The problem is if we have a problem with a country, you can't make the jet. We get parts from all over the place. It's so crazy. We should make everything in the United States.”
“Could we do it?” Bartiromo asked.
“Yeah, we're doing it because I'm changing all those policies,” Trump said. “Look, we make F-35s — very important, the greatest jet in the world — where the main body of the jet is made in Turkey and then sent here.”
But if that relationship breaks down, Turkey could refuse to give the United States key F-35 components, Trump said.
It was unclear whether Trump actually plans to take action to move additional elements of F-35 back to the United States.
In a statement to Defense News, Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Mike Andrews said the Pentagon has no comment and referred questions on Trump's statements to the White House.
“The Department remains fully committed to the F-35 program, and maintaining a competitive edge with its unique, unmatched 5th generation capabilities. We will continue to aggressively reduce F-35 cost, incentivize Industry to meet required performance, and deliver advanced capabilities to our warfighters at the best value to our taxpayers." he said.
A spokesman for Lockheed referred questions to the Defense Department.
It's worth noting that while Trump got many broad assertions about the program right, not all of his statements about the F-35 stand up to scrutiny. Here's a point-by-point explainer:
Global participation is baked into the very foundation of the Joint Strike Fighter program.
The Joint Strike Fighter program — which stems from efforts started in the 1990s — was structured not only to produce planes for the U.S. military but also for key allies. Nations that wanted to be “partners” on the program would help foot the bill for developing the jet in exchange for work producing components on the program.
There were several benefits to this structure. From an operational perspective, it would ensure that many of the Pentagon's closest allies were using the same jet, making it easier to send information and coordinate military engagements.
From an industrial perspective, having a deep, multilayered global supply chain would theoretically make F-35 production less prone to disruption, and it could make it easier for Lockheed to distribute parts to sustain the jet worldwide.
There were also economic advantages for the United States. Having so much international buy-in ensured future sales, which benefited U.S. defense manufacturers and the Defense Department, which can buy its planes more cheaply due to economies of scale.
Originally there were nine partner nations on the program: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. However, the United States expelled Turkey from the program last year after the country purchased the Russian S-400 air defense system.
President Barack Obama and his predecessors weren't really to blame for the globalized structure of the program.
Historically — at least until Trump — a president hasn't publicly interfered in the F-35 program. The Obama administration was broadly supportive of the F-35, continuing to finance the program even as it hit a number of technical snags that caused cost and schedule to balloon. However, the structure of the program and much of the F-35 supply chain was already set in stone before Obama was sworn into office in 2009.
Lockheed Martin won the Joint Strike Fighter contract in 2001 after producing a prototype version of the F-35 known as the X-35 and facing off against Boeing's X-35 demonstrator. At that point, the company would have already cemented much of its supply chain as part of the process of preparing a proposal for the competition. The first F-35 flew in 2006.
While there have been changes to the F-35 supply chain since the jet went into production, the more major changes have occurred during block upgrades, when legacy technologies are swapped out for cheaper, improved versions. One example is the transition of the distributed aperture system from a Northrop Grumman to Raytheon product during the upcoming 15th lot of F-35 production.
Turkey has an industrial role in building the F-35, and that's changing on the U.S. government's terms.
Trump's assertion that Turkey could deny the United States key F-35 components doesn't reflect the current status quo, as it's the U.S. Defense Department that is working to expel Turkey from the program.
While it is true that Turkey, as an international partner on the F-35 program, helps to manufacture the jet and build key components, Trump has overstated the role played by Turkey. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Turkey makes about 1,000 different components for the F-35.
The Pentagon is set to stop awarding F-35-related contracts to Turkish firms this year. According the GAO, the Defense Department already identified alternate suppliers for all components currently made in Turkey, and the department is working with those suppliers to speed up production.
When Trump talks about Turkey building the “main body” of the jet, he is talking about the center fuselage, some of which are built by Turkish Aerospace Industries. However, TAI is only the secondary supplier of the center fuselage, with Northrop Grumman making that component for the majority of F-35s. It is very likely that Northrop will take over production of that structure until another supplier is found to replace TAI.
Updated 5/14/20 with statements from the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin.
9 septembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
The push comes after extreme weather, fueled by a warming of the earth's atmosphere, has wreaked havoc on Americans across the country this summer.
29 juillet 2022 | International, Aérospatial
Kathy Warden said the company’s B-21 stealth bomber positions it well to compete for the Next Generation Air Dominance warplane.
23 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — U.S. Army Futures Command is laying the groundwork to strengthen collaboration with academia and small businesses to solve some of the service's most major problems. The Army has struggled with relationships outside of the established defense industry, particularly with small businesses and Silicon Valley. Small businesses have expressed concerns about working with the government, mostly in regard to the time it takes to secure a contract award as well as the complex and cumbersome government-contracting process. The Government Accountability Office issued a report last week that found Army Futures Command could improve how it works with small businesses. The report was released on the eve of AFC's declaration of full operational capability, which is officially set for July 31. “The funny thing is if I talk to defense primes, they are convinced all we are working with is small business, and I talk to small business all they are convinced ... we are working with the defense primes,” Gen. Mike Murray, AFC commander, said during a July 18 press briefing at the Pentagon. “It's going to take a combination of both for us to accomplish our mission, and in many ways a combination of both working together” to achieve the command's goals in modernizing the Army, he said. But Murray agreed there is more to be done. To its credit, the command was built from scratch and was a “blank canvas” just a year ago, Murray said. The command went from 24 pioneers on the ground at its headquarters in Austin, Texas, to 24,000 soldiers and civilians in 25 states and in 15 countries, over the course of the past year. Since landing in Austin, the AFC has established “focused relationships” with industry and academia, he added. Engaging small businesses One critical step toward engagement with small businesses was the creation of the Army Applications Laboratory in Austin's Capital Factory — an innovation hub for entrepreneurs in the heart of the city's downtown. The venue, with more than 100 Army personnel, is to identify novel solutions to benefit the Army's modernization priorities. For example, the lab is kicking off a major effort this week to discover out-of-the-box solutions for an autoloader for its Extended Range Cannon Artillery system in development under its top priority — Long Range Precision Fires. Additionally, a capability the Army was eyeing a year ago — discovered at the Capital Factory — will be tested at the flight school at Fort Rucker, Alabama, as the service refines its new lot of virtual reality trainers being tested in a pilot program. The Senseye technology is software that can track a pilot's irises during flight simulation training to determine when a person has neurologically learned a task. The Air Force has already incorporated this technology into its simulators. The commander of the Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker said in April at the Army Aviation Association of America symposium that the technology is promising. If all goes well, the commander added, the tech could be used as part of the Army's Synthetic Training Environment. The Army has a cross-functional team, or CFT, within Futures Command focused on such an environment. The GAO recommended the AFC use its cross-functional teams to enhance small business engagement. The Army Applications Lab was also recently at Fort Hood, Texas, working with soldiers on the ground to identify problems that could be solved by small businesses. The lab also completed a trip overseas, Murray noted, but he would not discuss specifics on the location. “I'm not going to say particularly where. There was some specific re-coding of some mission command systems, which significantly helped,” he said. The GAO also recommended the command focus on better engaging small businesses for research and development programs. The command has established four related initiatives, according to the report: It set up the Army Research Laboratory Open Campus 2.0, which transitions scientific research from universities to Army technology development efforts. The command set up the Army Capability Accelerator to help small businesses mature concepts into prototypes and validate early-stage technology. This is managed within the Army Applications Lab. The Army Strategic Capital restructures a prior effort that takes venture capital to offset Army development costs by investing in existing Army Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. Lastly, Halo is an effort to accelerate the “adaptation and transition of commercial and startup-derived products to Army applications and programs,” according to the GAO report. The Army Applications Lab will also manage the effort. Murray is in the process of hiring a lead for a small-business office within AFC. While the Army already has a servicewide small-business office, the GAO recommended AFC interface and use that office to improve relations with small businesses. The office will “make sure that we are at least knowledgeable focusing on capitalizing on anything that small businesses have to offer,” Murray said. AFC is also in the preliminary stage of arranging an event in Austin to establish relationships between small businesses and defense primes, Murray said. “One thing I worry about with small business is the ability to scale,” he said, “so there are a lot of ways they can scale, and one of the ways is working with a defense prime.” While defense primes have relationships with small business, Murray noted, the effort would foster new ones that might not exist. Academic pursuits AFC has also established the University Technology Development Division, which serves as the primary link between the command and its academic partners, Murray said. “That is taking root in several key places,” he explained, including Vanderbilt University, which is partnering with the 101st Airborne Division; Carnegie Mellon University, the home of the Army's Artificial Intelligence Task Force; and the University of Texas as well as Texas A&M, where the command is beginning work on several key programs. In addition to providing the building for AFC's headquarters and offering up roughly 10,000 square feet of office space and labs at its Cockrell School of Engineering, the University of Texas is building a robotics institute for the Army by converting an old building into a lab “at fairly significant cost,” Murray said. Murray has tasked engineers at the University of Texas to study the utility of robotics taking over the dirty and dangerous work while keeping soldiers out of harm's way, even bringing a leading engineering professor from the school on a recent trip to Yakima Air Force Base in Washington state to witness a robotic breach experiment that was part of the service's Joint Warfighting Assessment. The lab will also work on battery technologies, Murray added. The inventor of the lithium battery works at the University of Texas. Texas A&M is focused on hypersonics and directed-energy research, according to Murray. The university will eventually build a soldier-development facility at its RELLIS campus“where we will be able to marry up soldiers with graduate students and faculty to go into some agile development capability in solving problems for soldiers,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/07/22/can-futures-command-change-the-armys-relationship-with-academia-and-small-business/