6 novembre 2020 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy announced Thursday it had inked a $9.47 billion contract with builder General Dynamics Electric Boat for the full construction cost of the lead boat of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, as well as advanced procurement money for the second boat, the future USS Wisconsin.
The announcement marks the end of the beginning for the Columbia class, which the Navy has for years said is its top priority. The 12-ship class will replace the retiring Ohio-class submarines. The Columbia is slated to make its first patrol in 2031, and the Navy says it must meet the timeline to maintain continuous sea-based deterrent patrols.
The contract also covers continued component testing and engineering, according to the DoD contract announcement.
“The contract modification exercises an option for construction and test of the lead and second ships of the Columbia class SSBN 826 and SSBN 827, as well as associated design and engineering support,” the contract reads.
From here on out, the program is about getting things in order to prepare for full production in the second half of the 2020s, when the Navy plans to buy one per year, the service's top acquisition official told reporters Thursday.
“Now it's really about execution,” said James Geurts, the Navy's head of research, development and acquisition. "It's making sure that now, with the contract in place, transitioning into full construction. ...
“The design, maturity of this program surpasses any other submarine we have ever done. We've got a solid design. Now it's moving to design refinement to design complete, and advanced construction into full construction for the first ship. And then not taking our eye off the ball of the fact that we will quickly move into, by the third, annual construction.”
Getting the first ship right will be key, Geurts continued.
“There's a whole lot of effort to get the first ship out, and get the first ship out right,” he said. “That's necessary, but not sufficient. We've got to make sure the enterprise is ready to execute the full scope of the program so that we can meet the requirements for the nation.”
The second hull is fully priced into the contract, Navy officials said on the call, meaning that when the Navy wants to exercise the option planned for 2024, it will not have to renegotiate for the cost of full construction.
The Columbia program is a massively expensive undertaking, with the Navy estimating it will run about $7.5 billion per hull over the class. By 2026, when the Navy will be buying one Columbia per year, considering the FY21′s roughly $20 billion shipbuilding request as a guide, Columbia would eat up to 38 percent of the Navy's shipbuilding money at a time when DoD believes the Navy needs to expand the fleet to meet a rising Chinese naval threat.
In January, the cost of Columbia drew a blunt assessment from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, who said if the Navy is going to expand, it needs more cash.
“Here's the deal, we need more money,” Gilday said. "We need more top line.
“If you believe that we require overmatch in the maritime domain, if you believe that in order to execute distributed maritime operations and to operate forward in numbers now that we need more iron, then, yes, we need more top line.”
Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who represents the district where GDEB is located, said the contract was a victory for the submarine industrial base, which has been under enormous strain as the Navy ramps up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year and the Columbia class.
“This isn't just a milestone for the shipbuilders at EB — the Columbia-class program will also be a major opportunity for industry partners up and down the supply chain for years to come, and a foundational piece for our region's economic future,” Courtney said. "Generations of shipbuilders and manufacturers will get their start working on this multi-decade program, and it's an exciting time to get more people into the pipeline for the jobs and opportunities that will come with the start of this effort.:
7 janvier 2022 | International, Aérospatial
Small armed devices, often bought for a few hundred dollars online, are a big battlefield problem for the U.S. military, and developing a defense that is cost-effective against swarms of them is a conundrum. Laser and microwave weapons are among the new options.
29 juillet 2020 | International, Terrestre
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is still considering two different paths to build prototypes for its future long-range assault aircraft following an industry day earlier this month, but is pushing toward a contract award in fiscal 2022, according to the service's FLRAA program manager. While the Army continues to sift through industry feedback to help it choose a route, the service remains on track to publish a draft request for proposals by the end of the year, followed by a finalized RFP in FY21, Col. David Phillips told reporters July 24. The Army chose Bell and Lockheed Martin's Sikorsky to enter into a competitive demonstration and risk reduction effort ahead of the start of the FLRAA program of record. The service is on a tight timeline to field a brand-new, long-range assault aircraft by 2030. The CDRR effort will consist of two phases that will last roughly one year each. Bell and a Sikorsky-Boeing team respectively designed, built and flew technology demonstrator aircraft as part a Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration phase prior to entering the CDRR effort. The companies will deliver initial conceptual designs, an assessment of the feasibility of requirements and trade studies using model-based systems engineering. “Due to the success of phase one (awarded on 16 March) the Army is looking at the scope of a second phase which would refine the digital designs from the system to subsystem level and further burn down risk as FLRAA enters into the [program of record,” Phillips said in a written statement to Defense News on July 27. The Army provided two schedules to get through the design and prototyping phase in an RFI in May to gain industry feedback. The first schedule lasts 52 months, putting the end of the prototyping period somewhere in the ballpark of early summer 2026. The schedule allows for a preliminary design review for just the air vehicle from the winning team — picked in the second quarter of FY22 — eight months after the contract award. The team would then have another preliminary design review for the weapon systems 17 months past contract award, which roughly falls around August 2023. The Army would hit the engineering and manufacturing development phase around October 2023, followed by a critical design review in early 2025. The first prototype would be delivered in the summer of 2025, with five more prototypes delivered through the summer of 2026. The alternative schedule would allow for a preliminary design review for both the air vehicle and the weapon systems at the same time at roughly 10 months following a contract award. This approach aims to get to an engineering and manufacturing development decision around March 2023. A critical design review would follow at the start of 2024, with a first prototype delivery expected around February 2025. All six prototypes should be delivered to the Army by roughly March 2026. The total time frame for the second option is 48 months post contract award. While the difference in schedules is just roughly four months, every week counts as the Army works to field new capabilities as fast as possible. Army leaders have often said that schedule is king when it comes to fielding the service's top modernization priorities. FVL is the third-highest priority, preceded only by a Next-Generation Combat Vehicle and Long-Range Precision Fires. The Army is driving toward entering a production and deployment phase in 2028 ahead of the first unit receiving the aircraft in 2030. “We believe FLRAA's design and requirements approach is inverting the defense procurement paradigm. Our approach gives the Army multiple opportunities to optimize requirements through digital engineering prior to entering the design, build, and test of the weapons system,” Phillips told Defense News. “Making informed decisions on requirements through design optimization will enable the Army to ensure FLRAA capabilities are affordable; meet [Multi-Domain Operations] requirements; and deliver on an aggressive schedule that does not sacrifice rigor for speed.” Multi-Domain Operations is the Army's war-fighting doctrine designed to operate and fight against anticipated future adversaries across land, sea, air and cyberspace Bell and Lockheed are also competing head-to-head to design and build the Army's future attack reconnaissance aircraft, which will follow a nearly simultaneous schedule as the FLRAA competition. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/07/28/army-still-mulling-different-paths-to-build-long-range-assault-helo-prototypes/
22 janvier 2024 | International, Aérospatial
Germany's army will revive its anti-aircraft capability with a new guided missile system to be mounted on a Boxer with $1.34bn of investment.