6 novembre 2020 | International, Naval

US Navy inks $9.4B contract for two Columbia-class nuclear missile submarines

By:

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.:

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/05/navy-inks-contract-for-two-columbia-class-nuclear-missile-submarines

Sur le même sujet

  • Maintenance delays are ‘blood in the water’ for aircraft carrier critics, admiral says

    15 septembre 2020 | International, Naval

    Maintenance delays are ‘blood in the water’ for aircraft carrier critics, admiral says

    David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The head of the U.S. Navy's East Coast-based aviation enterprise said the service must demand to get aircraft carriers out of their maintenance availabilities on time, and that failure to do so throws fuel on the fire of critics who say the aircraft carrier is becoming irrelevant. Calling carrier operational availability his “number one concern,” Rear Adm. John Meier, commander of Naval Air Forces Atlantic, said the service had to make sure shipyards delivered its ships to the fleet on time. “More often than not we've been having delays getting them out of the yards on time,” Meier said at the virtual edition of the annual Tailhook Association Symposium. "With the budgetary pressure we'll be facing, when we don't get the return on the enormous investment in aircraft carriers, every day we lose of operational ability is like a drop of blood in the water. “It fans the flames of critics who want to cut aircraft carriers. And in my mind, I can't see a naval aviation force or a Navy without carriers in the future.” A recent government watchdog report said that 75 percent of the Navy's carrier and submarine maintenance availabilities have run late, resulting in 7,425 days of delays. Both the Truman and Eisenhower have had recent maintenance woes and delays, and the carrier Bush is currently working through a 28-month maintenance period, much longer than the normal 16-month availability. A forthcoming DoD-led Navy force structure assessment could herald cuts to the 11-carrier fleet. In April, Defense News reported that the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense recommended cutting two aircraft carriers from the current force structure in the coming decades. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/11/maintenance-delays-are-blood-in-the-water-for-aircraft-carrier-critics-admiral-says/

  • FARA: Five-Way Fight For Army’s Future Scout

    26 février 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    FARA: Five-Way Fight For Army’s Future Scout

    By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. WASHINGTON: After four decades of failed attempts to replace its Vietnam-vintage OH-58 Kiowa scout, next month the Army will choose two of five competing teams to build prototypes for a new Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft. Those prototypes, in turn, will compete for a mass-production contract in a 2023 “fly off,” with deliveries no later than 2028. A new scout is urgently overdue as the US faces ever-more-sophisticated Russian and Chinese air defenses that can keep traditional aircraft at bay. But with limited budgets, the Army will have to pick and choose high-priority units to get FARA first, and the rest of the force will have to wait. “We've got to look at, where are the most critical spots to bring capability,” said Brig. Gen. Michael McCurry, director of aviation for the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for operations and plans. The priority is the cutting-edge combat units that must break open sophisticated anti-aircraft defensives for the rest of the force to follow, he told me: “That penetrate force, that's where FARA is going to go.” Learning From the Past Now, the Army has made its job easier in a couple of important ways. Perhaps most important, instead of the traditional dozens or hundreds of detailed technical specifications that hem in designers' ingenuity, Future Vertical Lift director Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen told me, “we have very few critical attributes within our FARA spec.” One huge thing that the Army is not asking for: stealth. Unlike the costly Boeing Comanche cancelled in 2006, the FARA won't have to be shaped and coated to be impervious to radar – which is largely irrelevant to low-flying helicopters hiding behind hills, trees, or buildings, which are most often detected by the sound of their rotors, not by radar. Like the Comanche, advertised as a “digital quarterback,” FARA will act as an electronic hub for battlefield intelligence, collecting target data from drones and passing it to Army artillery, hypersonic missiles, and Air Force strike fighters – but network tech has come a long way since 2006, the year before the iPhone went on sale. Finally, unlike the Comanche, FARA won't be a conventional helicopter with a single main rotor and a small tail rotor for stability. The speed and range required to survive the future battlefield are greater than that classic set-up can achieve. That's driven all four firms who've discussed their designs in public – Boeing has not revealed anything – to adopt innovative configurations the Army's never fielded before. Only one of the designs, Sikorsky's, is based on an existing aircraft that's done actual flight tests. But the Army is confident the competitors can deliver. In detailed modeling, Rugen said, “all those offerings are beating those [minimum] mission critical attributes that we're trying towards.” Congress actually cut the FARA budget for 2020 by $34 million. That won't slow the program down, the Army has said, but it will reduce the amount of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) the service can provide the contractors to build their prototypes around: weapons systems including a 20-millimeter autocannon and a missile launcher, Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) electronics, and the GE Improved Turbine Engine. To simplify and speed up development, all the competitors are required to include these standard-issue systems in their design — but the aircraft they build around them are radically different. Design shop AVX has proposed an aircraft with two helicopter-style main rotors for vertical takeoff, wings for extra lift, and a pair of their characteristic ducted fans for speed. AVX, founded by Bell alumni, has never built an actual aircraft. But it's backed by the manufacturing might of the much larger L3Harris, a firm created by the merger of the 18th and 26th-largest defense contractors in the world (as per their 2019 rankings on the Defense News Top 100). By contrast, Bell – part of Textron, No. 34 on the Top 100 – is a major builder of both military and commercial helicopters, as well as the revolutionary V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, from which the company's contender for the Army's future transport aircraft, the V-280, derives. Ironically, the Bell 360 Invictus is the most conservative-looking of the four known FARA designs: It's a streamlined single-main-rotor helicopter (looking kind of like Comanche) with the addition of two short wings for extra lift. Inside the aircraft, though, Bell is using new fly-by-wire flight controls and other technologies developed for its civilian Bell 525. Aerospace giant Boeing – No. 2 of the top 100, counting its defense contracts alone – builds the Army's current mainstay armored gunship, the AH-64 Apache; its heavy lifter, the CH-47 Chinook; and, with Bell, the V-22 tiltrotor. But Boeing, which built the stealthy Comanche, is so far in public-relations stealth mode on FARA, declining to discuss its design. Karem Aerospace is another design shop with an excellent pedigree – its founder is the father of the Predator drone – but no track record of actually building an aircraft. However, it's partnered with Northrop Grumman (No. 3 of the top 100) and Raytheon (No. 4) for this program, giving it serious manufacturing heft. The Karem AR-40 design has a unique combination of a single main rotor on top, a propeller at the tail that can swivel to act either as a tail rotor for stability or a pusher propeller for thrust, and wings that can tilt for the optimum aerodynamic angle in different modes of flight. Last in the alphabet, comes Sikorsky, the helicopter division of the world's biggest defense contract, Lockheed Martin. While Sikorsky's Raider-X design hasn't flown yet, it's essentially a 20 percent larger version of the two S-97 Raiders the company built and flight-tested at its own expense. (One of them was totaled in the process, thankfully with no loss of life). And Sikorsky already knows how to upscale its compound helicopter technology, because there's already an even bigger member of the family, the Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 Defiant, now in flight tests for the Army's Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA). All these aircraft derive from the Collier Trophy-winning X2 and share its configuration: two main rotors on top, using ultra-rigid blades to provide maximum lift with minimum vibration at high speeds, and a single pusher propeller at the tail. Between the X2, the S-97, and the SB>1, Sikorsky's configuration has been through far more flight testing than any of its competitors on FARA. So which team has the best combination of innovative design, proven technology, and the manufacturing muscle to build it at a price the nation can afford? That's a call the Army will make, and soon. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/fara-five-way-fight-for-armys-future-scout

  • Space Force seeking more narrowband communication satellites

    31 mars 2023 | International, C4ISR

    Space Force seeking more narrowband communication satellites

    The effort will extend the life of the MUOS constellation until the service crafts a longer term plan for narrowband communications.

Toutes les nouvelles