Retour aux nouvelles

9 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

US Army’s Future Vertical Lift program will transform industry, so we must get it right

By: Andrew Hunter and Rhys McCormick

It is rare when technological innovation delivers change that fundamentally reshapes military operations. Helicopters made one of these rare breakthroughs after World War II. The ability to support land operations with vertical lift aircraft fundamentally changed how militaries moved on the battlefield. However, the shape of military operations supported by today's helicopters reflect their capabilities and limitations in terms of speed, range and lift capacity. The Army's Future Vertical Lift efforts are designed to reshape military operations by surpassing the limits imposed by today's systems.

It is less commonly appreciated, however, that future vertical lift, or FVL, aircraft may do just as much to reshape the vertical lift industry as they do military operations. To deliver the capabilities FVL requires affordably — in development, production and sustainment — industry will have to leverage new design and production techniques that deliver critical components with high quality and moderate cost.

Key parts such as rotor blades and rotor heads are big cost drivers. Designing these parts for FVL means redesigning the supply chains and manufacturing processes that produce them. For the smaller companies that make up the lower tiers of the supply chain, this will require them to fundamentally change how their production process works.

We recently completed a study that looked at the implications of the Army's Future Vertical Lift project for the industrial base. What became clear in this review is that there are both opportunities and risks in making the transition to FVL. Substantial investment is required by both the Army and industry, and not everyone in industry will make it. However, this transition also offers significant opportunities to leverage emerging technologies such as additive manufacturing, robotics, artificial intelligence, digital twins and data analytics to achieve the Army's objectives.

The Army's management will be key in ensuring that industry is able to get the most out of new design and production methods, reconfigured supply chains, and a reshaped workforce. The Army's key tools for managing the transition include its ability to provide an addressable market for the industrial base that attracts the necessary FVL investment, and its ability to align industry incentives with the Army's core goals.

The addressable market for industry is not just the Army's future programs, but also the sustainment of legacy platforms. For much of the supply chain, the sustainment market is a huge part of their bottom line. The Army's total vertical lift-addressable market for industry is roughly $8-10 billion annually over the next decade. Although there are some concerns whether that level of spending is feasible while procuring two vertical lift programs simultaneously, previous research by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that future attack reconnaissance aircraft and future long-range assault aircraft can be accommodated at historical Army modernization funding levels.

Of that $8-10 billion annual vertical lift spending, operating and support costs will provide the largest share, while research and development as well as acquisition total a little more than $2 billion annually.

Given the size of the addressable market, the biggest challenges and risks in transitioning to a new vertical lift industrial base are not among the big prime contractors, but among the smaller suppliers in the industrial base who can't be sure that investing in FVL today will generate the necessary returns tomorrow.

Unlike the bigger prime contractors, these lower-tier suppliers have a much different risk appetite and may struggle with making the upfront investments to build components in new ways. Supporting the supply chain in making this transition is critical to meeting the Army's cost and schedule objectives, which highlights how important incentives are in the Army's approach.

The Army's biggest incentive to industry is to provide predictability by keeping FVL program requirements consistent and clear through the development process so that industry can plan and invest. To date, the Army has done this. It should continue to do so.

Additionally, the Army can incentivize industry to make upfront investments now that deliver cost savings later. Given that sustainment costs account for 68 percent of rotary-wing costs, these investments are critical. Furthermore, it is in the Army's interest to sustain competition throughout the development process as it moves closer to picking winners. Competition is the strongest incentive for industry.

Finally, the Army should be cognizant that incentives will change as FVL moves from development to production, and its management approach will need to evolve.

The Army has the key ingredients in place for FVL if it successfully guides the industrial base through this transition. While that is a tall order, our analysis of the Army's FVL plans suggests they begin on solid ground and are well-informed by the technological and affordability realities. One final factor in FVL's success will be sustaining congressional support by being clear and consistent in communicating and executing the Army's plans.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/07/us-armys-future-vertical-lift-program-will-transform-industry-so-we-must-get-it-right/

Sur le même sujet

  • If the US Navy isn’t careful, its new unmanned tanker drone could face a 3-year delay

    12 juin 2020 | International, Naval

    If the US Navy isn’t careful, its new unmanned tanker drone could face a 3-year delay

    By: David B. Larter   WASHINGTON — The US Navy could face a three-year delay in testing of the MQ-25 Stingray carrier-based tanking drone if it doesn't get its designated test ships through the required modernizations on time, a possibility the Navy said was remote. Two carriers — Carl Vinson and George H.W. Bush — have limited windows to complete the installation of unmanned aircraft control stations, and if operational commitments intervene it could create significant issues for the program, according to Navy officials and a government watchdog report. “Program officials stated that, among other things, the Navy's potential inability to maintain its schedule commitments could require modifications to the contract that would impact the fixed-price terms,” the Government Accountability Office reported. “Specifically, the Navy faces limited flexibility to install MQ-25 control centers on aircraft carriers. “If the Navy misses any of its planned installation windows, the program would have to extend MQ-25 development testing by up to 3 years. According to officials, such a delay could necessitate a delay to initial capability and result in a cost increase.” Navy officials say a three-year delay is “extremely unlikely,” however the Navy has struggled in recent years to balance its modernization schedules with operational commitments, a problem that its “Optimized Fleet Response Plan” deployment rotation scheme was supposed to address. Ultimately, a delay would further push back the Navy's ability to extend its carrier air wing's range through unmanned tanking, critical to keeping the service's powerful strike arm relevant against long-range guided munitions. The Navy believes it can avoid a schedule delay and is working toward keeping the program on track, said Jamie Cosgrove, a spokesperson for Naval Air Systems Command. “The Navy is still planning to achieve [initial operating capability] in 2024,” Cosgrove said. “A three-year extension of development testing and a delay to IOC is extremely unlikely and represents improbable scenarios where both aircraft carriers currently designated to support MQ-25 testing are unavailable due to operational requirements, or the program misses the planned periods to install the MQ-25 test equipment on those two carriers. “Should either of these unlikely scenarios occur, the program will reevaluate the schedule and determine how to best mitigate schedule impacts to deliver the mission-critical MQ-25 to the Fleet ASAP.” Unmanned control The specific alternations needed to operate the MQ-25 Stingray include special control and network equipment, Cosgrove said. The program of record is the Unmanned Carrier Aviation Mission Control System and installing it will include setting up a control room known as the Unmanned Aviation Warfare Center on the ship. The equipment in the UAWC will include control stations, network interfaces and routing equipment, commanding and control equipment and network infrastructure, Consgrove said. The Navy awarded Boeing an $805 million contract to build the first four MQ-25 aircraft, with options for three additional aircraft. In April, the Navy announced it had exercised the option to the tune of $84.7 million, bringing the total number of Stingrays under contract to 7. Ultimately the Navy plans to buy 69 additional aircraft as part of the its full production run, according to the GAO report. The Navy's former air boss Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker told USNI Proceedings in a 2017 interview that the MQ-25 would extend the carrier air wing's range by up to 400 miles. Juggling maintenance The Navy has struggled to maintain its carrier schedules in recent years as the problems have arisen with carriers during their availabilities. For example, last year, the carrier Abraham Lincoln was extended on its deployment because its relief, the carrier Harry S Truman, was stuck in maintenance to repair unforeseen issues. That can throw a monkey wrench into the Navy's overstretched deployment rotation scheme, meaning that other carriers have their deployments extended while still others have their maintenance availabilities truncated to play catch up. But that can lead to even more problems down the road with differed maintenance and worn-out equipment that ultimately adds up to a significant readiness hole that is tough to dig out from. All of this is exacerbated by crushing demands from Combatant Commanders for Navy forces overseas, which ultimately is driving the vicious cycle. That means the Navy will have to manage the risk of impacting the Vinson and Bush's upcoming maintenance availabilities to not set back the MQ-25 development cycle. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/10/if-the-us-navy-isnt-careful-its-new-unmanned-tanker-drone-could-face-a-3-year-delay/

  • American firm to take over Britain’s Meggitt in $8.8 billion deal

    3 août 2021 | International, C4ISR

    American firm to take over Britain’s Meggitt in $8.8 billion deal

    This is the second time in recent weeks a major British defense company has been targeted by an American rival in a merger bid.

  • Florence Parly lance une initiative européenne de défense à neuf

    26 juin 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

    Florence Parly lance une initiative européenne de défense à neuf

    LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - Neuf pays européens dont l'Allemagne, la Belgique et le Royaume-Uni ont signé lundi la lettre d'intention de l'initiative européenne d'intervention (IEI) prônée par Paris pour porter une approche novatrice de la défense hors des dispositifs de l'UE. Par l'IEI, la France ambitionne de doter les Européens d'une capacité d'action et de prévention autonome de l'UE, pour des conflits mais aussi des crises humanitaires ou environnementales, en mutualisant la planification militaire, le soutien aux opérations, l'anticipation et le renseignement. “Face aux doutes éventuels, il faut affirmer ses convictions”, a déclaré la ministre des Armées Florence Parly à l'issue de la signature. “Les Européens doivent être forts, les Européens doivent être capables, de plus en plus, d'assurer leur protection et leur souveraineté et donc cette initiative est en faveur de la souveraineté européenne”, a-t-elle ajouté. L'Allemagne, la Belgique, le Danemark, les Pays-Bas, l'Estonie, la France, le Portugal, l'Espagne et le Royaume-Uni ont signé lundi à Luxembourg le premier acte de l'initiative. La ministre des Armées, qui a porté le projet qu'Emmanuel Macron avait appelé de ses voeux en septembre lors d'un discours à la Sorbonne, a estimé qu'il répondait en outre aux appels américains pour une Europe qui assume plus sa sécurité. “Cette étape va permettre de commencer très vite des travaux communs qui impliqueront les états-majors des différentes forces armées”, a-t-elle précisé dans un entretien au Figaro. “Une première rencontre aura lieu mi-septembre à Paris pour mettre en place un programme de travail concernant l'anticipation, la planification et l'organisation d'exercice”, poursuit-elle, évoquant l'étude de scénarios concrets, “par exemple pour préparer l'exfiltration de ressortissants”. Absente de la liste des signataires, l'Italie “réfléchit à la possibilité de rejoindre cette initiative, mais n'a pas pris de décision définitive”, a précisé Florence Parly. Dans un communiqué, elle ajoute que “d'autres pays européens, capables, volontaires et partageant les objectifs de l'IEI, pourront rejoindre l'Initiative européenne d'intervention”. MOBILISATION PLUS RAPIDE L'accord à neuf a ménagé des concessions à l'Allemagne sur le maintien d'un lien fort entre l'IEI et la Coopération structurée permanente (Pesco ou CSP), le pacte de défense entériné en décembre dernier par 25 pays de l'Union européenne (excluant un Royaume-Uni sur le départ). “L'Allemagne ne souhaitait pas que l'Initiative européenne d'intervention soit détachée de la CSP. C'est parce que nous maintiendrons entre les deux mécanismes un lien fort qu'elle a décidé d'adhérer”, a précisé Florence Parly. En dépit d'inquiétudes quant à l'accumulation de dispositifs, le secrétaire général de l'Otan Jens Stoltenberg a salué la décision, jugeant que l'initiative faciliterait la modernisation des armées européennes et leur rapidité de mobilisation. “Je pense que cela peut renforcer la disponibilité des forces, car nous avons besoin d'une disponibilité élevée”, a-t-il déclaré à la presse en marge de la réunion des ministres de la Défense et des Affaires étrangères de l'Union européenne. Paris, qui entend stimuler des réponses européennes plus promptes face aux crises, se place au centre d'une réorganisation des structures européennes de défense post-Brexit, en incluant la puissance militaire britannique au sein de cette nouvelle initiative. Le ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères, Heiko Mass, a paru lundi partager l'impatience française et a dit souhaiter que la politique étrangère européenne soit décidée par un vote à la majorité à l'avenir, et non par une décision à l'unanimité. Londres entend conclure un traité avec l'Union européenne en matière de sécurité d'ici 2019, en vue notamment de garder après le Brexit accès aux bases de données, contrats d'armement et au partage d'informations au sein de l'Union, un projet soutenu par plusieurs Etats membres mais dont d'autres ne veulent pas. “Notre engagement dans la sécurité de ce continent est sans conditions”, a déclaré lundi un diplomate britannique, qui déplore la vision idéologique de certains pays pour lesquels le départ du Royaume-Uni de l'Union doit être total. https://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idFRKBN1JL1S2-OFRTP

Toutes les nouvelles