13 mai 2022 | International, Aérospatial
Xtend to supply hundreds of Wolverine Gen2 drones to US military
The Israeli company previously delivered several dozen Skylord counter-drone systems to the U.S. as part of a pilot program in 2020.
3 novembre 2020 | International, Terrestre
UK government to retake control of its atomic weapons management from industry
By: Andrew Chuter
LONDON – Britain's Ministry of Defence has taken back management control of its nuclear weapons facilities from an industry-led consortium that has been running the operation for two decades.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said in a statement to parliament that the Atomic Weapons Establishment will become wholly owned by the MoD, with the new arrangement expected to be in place by June 2021.
“Under the revised arrangements, AWE plc will become an arms-length body wholly owned by the MoD. It will continue to be managed by a world-leading team and a new board will be appointed by the MoD,” he told lawmakers.
Since 1999 AWE has been managed and operated by a Lockheed Martin-led consortium, which also includes Jacobs Engineering and Serco, in a deal which had been expected to run until 2025.
The arrangement, won in competition, followed several years of commercial management by Hunting-BRAE.
The establishment, based at Aldermaston in southern England, is at the core of British activities toward developing, producing and disassembling nuclear warheads for the Royal Navy's fleet of Trident missile-armed submarines.
In February the MoD committed itself to development of a new nuclear warhead to allow the Navy to field an effective deterrent for deployment on the new fleet of Dreadnought-class submarines due to start replacing the existing boats early in the next decade.
The MoD owns the AWE sites and facilities. The day-to-day management, operations and the maintenance of Britain's nuclear stockpile are the responsibility of the consortium, which employs the workforce and maintains the nuclear site operating licenses.
Wallace said the MoD has been looking at a successor arrangement for the current deal since July last year.
“Although the existing arrangements have brought stability to the organization the MoD has concluded that AWE will revert to a direct government ownership model,” said the defence secretary in his statement to parliament.
The MoD appears to have left the door open to some degree of commercial involvement in AWE.
In his statement Wallace said the new business model will see AWE “continue to draw on private sector specialist support to strengthen capability as well as playing a key role in managing capital projects and contracts.”
In a separate statement the defense ministry said removal of the current commercial arrangements would "enhance the MoD's agility in the future management of the UK's nuclear deterrent, whilst also delivering on core MoD objectives and value for money to the taxpayer.
“The decision was taken in order to simplify and further strengthen the relationship between AWE and the MoD,” the statement said.
AWE Management Limited, the name of the company formed by the consortium to manage and operate the nuclear facilities, only appointed a new chief executive, Alison Atkinson, in May.
An industry competition for what is thought to be a three-year transformation program at AWE is already in its early stages.
An industry executive who asked not to be named said the MoD had invoked what is known as a “termination of convenience” clause in the contract to prematurely end the deal with the consortium.
“It was not performance related. Lockheed Martin and its partners could be due compensation,” said the executive.
AWE has not been without its problems though, and, along with the MoD, most recently attracted criticism from the National Audit Office, the government financial watchdog, for its handling of a program known as Mensa to build a facility to assemble and disassemble nuclear weapons.
Progress on Mensa has quickened recently but the program is expected to be over six years late and 146 percent over budget, according to an NAO report published in the summer.
In a statement, a Lockheed Martin spokesman said the company remains “fully committed to the delivery of the UK's continuous at-sea deterrent. We'll continue to support the UK government, as the Atomic Weapons Establishment transitions to a new operating model and delivers current and future requirements.”
Sur le même sujet
-
-
18 août 2020 | International, Naval
Top US Navy chief talks connecting tech, recovering from accidents
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of what could be a major shift in how it operates, but first the service's top officer wants a plan to both field technologies that have been lagging for years and develop a path forward to add new unmanned tech to the mainstream fleet. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday took on his latest role in August 2019 and has since been vocal about not just the need to field new tech, but also figuring out how it all fits together. In an exclusive July 16 interview with Defense News, the CNO talked about developing and executing his plans, as well as what it will take for the Navy to recover from a series of high-profile accidents and scandals. The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. Congress has been asking how the Navy plans to integrate unmanned surface vessels, and whether the service is prematurely committing to them. We've got a family of unmanned systems we're working on. Undersea, we've got extra-large, large and medium unmanned underwater vehicles; on the surface we have small, medium and large unmanned surface vessels; and in the air we have a number of programs. What I've asked the N9 [warfare systems directorate] to do is come to me with a campaign plan that ties all those together with objectives at the end. I've got a bunch of horses in the race, but at some point I have to put my money down on the thoroughbred that's going to take me across the finish line so I can make an investment in a platform I have high confidence in and that I can scale. What I've found is that we didn't necessarily have the rigor that's required across a number of programs that would bring those together in a way that's driven toward objectives with milestones. If you took a look at [all the programs], where are there similarities and where are there differences? Where am I making progress in meeting conditions and meeting milestones that we can leverage in other experiments? At what point do I reach a decision point where I drop a program and double down on a program that I can accelerate? Observers have questioned whether the Navy has a concrete idea of what it wants these unmanned surface vessels to do. What's the progress on that front? The concept of operations that the fleet is working on right now will be delivered in the fall, and that talks conceptually about how we intend to employ unmanned in distributed maritime operations. The other piece of this is, what would a day-to-day laydown look like of unmanned forward? The Navy has got to be forward: For obvious reasons we don't want the fight back here; the Navy exists to operate forward. That's where we need to be in numbers. And with unmanned, if you are not there at the right time, you are irrelevant. There has to be a number of unmanned [systems] forward. I can't just decide to rally unmanned out of San Diego or in the Pacific northwest at a time when they'll be too late to need. You've talked about a “Manhattan Project” to get a reliable network to deploy overseas that can bind together all these new platforms. Where are you with that? That's a critical piece of this, and a really important point of discussion with respect to unmanned, whether that's in the air, on the sea or under the sea, is the Navy Tactical Grid. Coming into the job, the projections for the Navy Tactical Grid was for delivery in about 2035. I knew that was way, way too late. We're investing in netted weapons, netted platforms, netted headquarters — but we don't have a net. So, on a handshake with [then-Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [David] Goldfein, I said: “Look, I am all in, and my vision is that the Navy Tactical Grid would be the naval plug into JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command and Control].” So the Navy Tactical Grid is a very critical piece of the unmanned campaign plan because it becomes the main artery for controlling all those unmanned platforms. Without it, I have a bunch of unmanned that I shouldn't be building because I can't control it very well. I need to put a team of the best subject matter experts that I have on the Navy Tactical Grid to deliver it here within the next few years. As part of its mark on the National Defense Authorization Act, both the House and the Senate made moves to slow down the development of the large unmanned surface vessel. They cited technical glitches with the Littoral Combat Ship program and the Ford class that have resulted in delays. Do you have concerns about slowing down that development, or is there merit to taking a slower, more iterative approach to fielding technologies? First of all, I actually agree with Congress on this. It is frustrating when you get marks on “large unmanned surface vessel” because they are concerned with the command and control of the missile systems that we could potentially put on those platforms or other systems. I go back to the campaign plan: The approach has to be deliberate. We have to make sure that the systems that are on those unmanned systems with respect to the [hull, mechanical and electrical system], that they are designed to requirement, and perform to requirement. And most importantly, are those requirements sound? I go back to: Do I really need a littoral combat ship to go 40 knots? That's going to drive the entire design of the ship, not just the engineering plant but how it's built. That becomes a critical factor. So if you take your eye off the ball with respect to requirements, you can find yourself drifting. That has to be deliberate. With respect to the systems we are putting on unmanned vessels, I'd say we absolutely learned from LCS and Ford; those have to be proven systems that are prototyped and land-based tested before we start doubling down and going into production. The littoral combat ships are quickly coming off the lines. Is the Navy prepared for them? There are things in the near term that I have to deliver, that I'm putting heat on now, and one of them is LCS. One part is sustainability and reliability. We know enough about that platform and the problems that we have that plague us with regard to reliability and sustainability, and I need them resolved. That requires a campaign plan to get after it and have it reviewed by me frequently enough so that I can be sighted on it. Those platforms have been around since 2008 — we need to get on with it. We've done five deployments since I've been on the job, we're going to ramp that up two and a half times over the next couple of years, but we have got to get after it. LCS for me is something, on my watch, I've got to get right. I also have to deliver both the mine and anti-submarine warfare modules. These ships are probably going to [start going] away in the mid-2030s if the [future frigate] FFG(X) build goes as planned. But I need to wring as much as I can out of those ships as quickly as I can. Have you seen any significant successes with the ship? I do think we have it about right with manning. We were honest with ourselves that the original design wasn't going to do it. I really like the blue-and-gold construct because I get way more [operational availability] than I would with just the single crew. So I can get these ships out there in numbers doing the low-end stuff in, let's say, 4th Fleet where I wouldn't need a DDG [destroyer]. The Navy deployed the LCS Detroit to South America — the 4th Fleet area of operations — last year on a counternarcotics mission, and it returned earlier this month. Those are the kinds of missions for which the LCS is perfectly suited. I can deploy these things with a [law enforcement detachment] and a signals intelligence capability, and I can do that on LCS with carry-on gear. It's the right kind of platform for that. Also in 5th Fleet, those maritime security missions that we were heavily sighted on in the late 1990s and early 2000s: They still exist, I'd just prefer to do them with an LCS instead of a DDG if I can. What other programs have caught your attention? In unmanned, whether it's the MQ-4C Triton [long-range surveillance drone] or the MQ-25 Stingray [carrier-based tanker drone], I've got to put heat on those. We have to get them out there in numbers, operating with a high level of confidence, so we can leverage what we learn across the rest of the unmanned build. In the wake of the Fat Leonard bribery scandal, the fatal accidents in 2017 and now the most recent fire onboard the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard, there are questions about systemic issues in the Navy. What are your thoughts about that? The Pentagon and Washington, D.C., drives you to focus on things. One of things [the late Air Force Col.] John Boyd talked about was that the priorities, even in a highly technical world, need to be on people, ideas and machines in that order. The issues we've faced in the Navy over the past few years all come back to people. They all come back to culture. If I draw it to Fat Leonard or to the 2017 Comprehensive Review or the review we did with the SEALs, most of that is cultural. Ninety-five percent of it is people-focused. It really comes down to leadership. That is not lost on me. It is easy in this building not to pay attention to it, but it is on my mind, and at the fleet commander level those are the things we talk most about: people, training, attitude. It's premature to judge the outcome of the investigation into Bonhomme Richard, but what questions do you have as you look at the scale of that disaster? This is a very, very serious incident that I think will force the Navy to stand back and reevaluate itself. We've got to follow the facts. We've got to be honest with ourselves and we've got to get after it. My intention, once the investigations are done, is to make this available for the public to debate, including what we need to do to get after any systemic problems that we might have. But one of things I did on the Sunday [after the fire broke out] was I read the report of the Miami fire back in 2012. That was the last mass conflagration in a shipyard environment that we had. There were a number of recommendations coming out of that incident. One of the questions I have is: Did we fully and adequately implement those recommendations? Because that fire was probably the most recent similar mass conflagration we've had. We learned from that. When we completed the investigation, did we just leave it in the rearview mirror, or did we — no kidding — take it seriously? https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/08/17/top-us-navy-chief-talks-connecting-tech-recovering-from-accidents/
-
4 septembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial
The US Air Force is asking for hypersonic weapon ideas as a new arms race with China and Russia heats up
Ryan Pickrell The US Air Force put out an open-ended request Thursday for hypersonic weapon concepts and development programs from qualified vendors with experience related to hypersonic platforms. The call comes amid an escalating arms race with China and Russia, both of whom have been actively testing new hypersonic systems. A hypersonic weapon is decidedly dangerous because its speed coupled with its unpredictable flight patterns make it almost impossible for existing air and missile defense systems to effectively intercept. "The homeland is no longer a sanctuary," Air Force Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, head of US North Command, saidrecently. With rivals China and Russia rapidly developing hypersonic weapons able to penetrate defenses to deliver devastating strikes on their enemies, the US Air Force is preparing to enter the arms race in a big way, signaling that the US is not yet ready to cede its competitive advantage in advanced weaponry to adversarial competitors. The Air Force posted a contracting announcement online Thursday calling for qualified vendors experienced in hypersonic aerodynamics, aerothermal protection systems, advanced hypersonic guidance, navigation and control, solid rocket motors, and so on to assist the service in research on "hypersonic weapon rapid development, production and sustainment." The multi-award contract, as The Drive first reported, appears to be an open-ended request for any and all hypersonic concepts and development programs. The Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin a contract in August for an Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), a hypersonic weapon and the second such contract offered by the Air Force this year. The service awarded a contract to Lockheed in April for a Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW). The Air Force reportedly has four different hypersonic weapons programs in the works for the B-52, according to The Drive, as well as submarine-launched and ground-launched systems in development. And, there could certainly be more. The newfound interest in hypersonic weaponry comes after repeated warnings from senior military officers suggesting that the US was losing its edge to peer competitors. "China's hypersonic weapons development outpaces ours... we're falling behind," Adm. Harry Harris, the former head of US Pacific Command (now called Indo-Pacific Command), said in February. The head of US Strategic Command warned in March that the US needs to bolster its defenses, explaining to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the US does not "have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us." The recently-signed 2019 National Defense Authorization Act approves investments in America's missile defense capabilities in the face of certain emerging threats from US rivals. "The homeland is no longer a sanctuary," Air Force Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, head of US North Command, said recently. "We're in a changing security environment. We used to think about the sanctuary we had with oceans and friendly countries to our north and south, but that's changing with adversaries that are actually able to reach out and touch us now." In the beginning of August, China tested the Xingkong-2 (Stary Sky-2) hypersonic experimental waverider vehicle able to fly at speeds as high as Mach 6. The hypersonic aircraft reportedly has the potential to be used as a hypersonic strike platform capable of carrying conventional and nuclear payloads and evading modern air and missile defenses. China, which has made the development of hypersonic systems a national priority, called the test a "huge success." Russia has also been experimenting with advanced hypersonic systems. For instance, Russia is expected to deploy its Avangard hypersonic boost-glide vehicle on the country's Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile within the next year or so. The Russians are also developing the hypersonic Kinzhal (Dagger) cruise missile, which could be ready for combat by 2020. While the weapon has only been tested on a MiG-31 fighter, Russia reportedly intendsto mount the weapon on a strategic bomber. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-air-force-asking-for-hypersonic-weapon-ideas-2018-9