US Navy ship programs face years-long delays amid labor, supply woes

Sur le même sujet

• 

  29 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Will commercial and military launch programs ever be truly complementary?

  By: Kirk Pysher In a few months, the U.S. Air Force will choose two of the four competing space companies to provide five years of launches in the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. One of the core objectives for this program is to increase affordability by leveraging the technologies and business models of the commercial launch industry. Is that a realistic expectation given the current commercial space market and historical precedents? Historically, the commercial launch market has seen significant variability. Launches of commercial communication satellite constellations began in the early 1970s with NASA serving as the launch provider. New launch providers began to emerge from the commercial world after the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 allowed the private sector to provide launch services. We then witnessed a remarkable growth in commercial space launches in the 1990s that peaked just before the turn of the century. Then, until about 2014, the commercial launch market stabilized at 20-25 commercial geostationary orbit satellites per year that were split essentially between three global launch suppliers. Since then, new entrants into the commercial launch market and pricing pressure from terrestrial-based communication systems have significantly impacted the viability of the commercial launch market, reducing profit margins and returns on investment across the board. The expected 20-25 commercial GEO missions is now in the range of 10-15 launches per year and is expected to remain at that level beyond the NSSL five-year period of performance. With new entrants into the commercial launch market, that 40-50 percent reduction in annual launch opportunities will now be competed among seven to eight global launch providers, putting further pressure on the viability of those launchers. Additionally, commercial launch revenue is also expected to decrease over that period by as much as 30 percent as satellite operators look to reduce their launch cost through shared launch, smaller spacecraft and reduced launch pricing. Given the projected commercial launch market and additional competition from new entrants, launch service providers will have difficultly building and maintaining viable commercial launch business plans, let alone having commercial launch-driven capital to invest in new technology. History has proven that no commercial launch service provider can succeed without having an anchor government customer. The commercial launch market simply has not been able to provide the stable, long-term demand needed to maintain affordable pricing, innovation and factory throughput for the Air Force to benefit from. History has also demonstrated that it is the Air Force with NSSL since 2003 that has provided the launch service providers with a stable number of launches. The defense and commercial launch markets have a fundamental difference. The former focuses strictly on satisfying national security mission requirements in space — needs that are driven by risk, strategy and geopolitical events regardless of vulnerabilities in commercial markets. The defense market began in the late 1950s with industry designing, developing and building launch vehicles for the U.S. government to place critical national security satellites into orbit. Early on, we saw a large number of launches in the beginning — peaking at more than 40 in 1966 — before activity levels decreased to level out by 1980. After more than 400 launches of defense-related satellites, the defense launch market finally settled into an average eight launches annually, whereas the commercial launch market is strictly tied to the ability of global satellite operators to close business plans and obtain institutional and/or private funding on new and replacement satellites. The global COVID-19 pandemic is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of all commercial markets. Airlines, aircraft manufacturers and commercial space companies are needing to seek tens of billions of dollars in government assistance; and private commercial space investors are also reassessing their risk postures, as is demonstrated by the recent OneWeb bankruptcy filing. Given the projected decline in commercial launch along with the historical precedents, there would be significant risk for the Air Force to expect to leverage benefit from commercial launch. In fact, I believe history has demonstrated that it is commercial launch that is able to leverage the benefits derived from the steady cadence of defense and civil government launches. The Air Force, in its role as anchor customer, needs to clearly understand commercial market dependencies and business cases of its key providers. With that understanding, the Air Force will mitigate any risk of critical national security missions being dependent on a finicky and fluctuating commercial market. Kirk Pysher is an aerospace executive with more than 20 years in the commercial launch market, serving most recently as the president of International Launch Services until October 2019. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/28/will-commercial-and-military-launch-programs-ever-be-truly-complementary/

• 

  11 juin 2024 | International, Terrestre

  Bill aims to strengthen contested logistics strategy in Pacific

  Senators introduced bill today that aims to ensure the U.S. is on track to strengthen its contested logistics capability in Pacific to deter China.

• 

  14 mai 2020 | International, C4ISR

  Support growing for review of Ligado interference information

  Aaron Mehta As the Department of Defense and its allies attempt to stop Ligado from moving forward with plans the Pentagon says will harm the Global Positioning System, consensus is growing around the idea of an independent review of the testing the Department had completed for interference. The dispute stems from the Federal Communications Commission's decision to approve Ligado's request to use L-Band spectrum, first reported by C4ISRNET April 10. Now the question is whether Pentagon tests showing that Ligado's plan would interfere with GPS signals vital to military, commercial and civilian technologies are still relevant, given mitigation plans from the company. A May 6 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the issue underlined a fundamental disconnect between the two sides over technical testing of Ligado's capabilities, a he-said-he-said situation where both sides claim the data shows the other is comprehensively wrong. That disconnect is an issue for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the chairman of the SASC and a vocal supporter of the Pentagon's position. “What I took away from our hearing last week was that the results of DoD's testing just don't match up with the testing the FCC relied on to make their decision; in fact, I'm concerned they were looking at different things,” Inhofe told C4ISRNET this week. “It seems to me the FCC didn't really give DOD's analysis — which was done in conjunction with eight other federal departments — fair consideration,” Inhofe continued. “While I trust the Pentagon's conclusions, I think we'll all sleep better at night if we have more independent testing done to verify just how Ligado's plan will affect our GPS signals.” While not saying who should do the verification, Inhofe's comments match up with calls from a trio of non-defense trade groups that in the last few days have specifically called for the National Academy of Sciences — a non-profit, non-governmental research institute that can play a role as a neutral arbiter — to take a fresh look at the data gathered by both the Pentagon and Ligado and weigh in. On May 8, Securing America's Future Energy and the Intelligent Transportation Society of America tweeted that NAS should specifically lead a new round of testing, while Dana Goward, president of the non-profit Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, also supported the idea in a May 11 op-ed for C4ISRNET. “Congress must select a technically competent and impartial entity such as the National Academy of Sciences to fill this role. This entity must review the work that has been done and conduct any further analysis needed to inform policy makers,” Goward wrote. “The technologies involved are mature. Testing methodologies are well established. This will not be an onerous task.” Pausing the FCC's decision while launching a review of the testing data would likely require approval from the Commerce committees. House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., suggested further work would be redundant. “We must ensure that this decision maintains our national and economic security, which is why this technology was tested, modified, and tested again, several times before the FCC reached its decision,” Walden said in a statement to C4ISRNET. The Pentagon, thus far, has been reluctant to agree to further technical testing, with Dana Deasy, the department's Chief Information Officers, shooting down the idea in a May 6 call with reporters. However, Defense leaders are now open to an independent review of existing test data, according to Lt. Col. Robert Carver, a department spokesman. He said in a statement the Pentagon would “support an impartial third party, one with demonstrated expertise in GPS testing, conducting a thorough examination of all data collected during the preceding decade of testing. “We emphasize any such examination must be conducted by a party with unquestioned capability, capacity and experience in this arena. We believe a painstaking examination of existing test data will confirm the results of all previous tests, including the limited tests funded by Ligado, that Ligado's proposal will result in interference to GPS even at the one-decibel level,” Carver said. “Any testing, or evaluation of prior testing, must address protection of the GPS service, the frequency band assigned to it, and all receivers intending to use that service." A Ligado spokesperson declined to comment. In the meantime, the department continues to push through the formal process to request the FCC change its mind. That would be a tough path forward for any vote that passed unanimously with five votes, as it would require three members of the commission to change their mind. It may be even more difficult given the comments from Deasy, Inhofe and others indicating the FCC purposefully kept DoD out of the loop as it was making its decision. In a statement after the hearing, an FCC spokesman blasted “all of the untrue statements” made by officials, called claims of unanimous opposition in the government “blatantly false,” and saying assertions that DoD was blindsided are “preposterous.” “The bottom line here is that the FCC made a unanimous, bipartisan decision based on sound engineering principles,” the spokesman said. “We stand by that decision 100% and will not be dissuaded by baseless fearmongering." Joe Gould in Washington contributed to this report https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2020/05/13/support-growing-for-review-of-ligado-interference-information/