10 juin 2020 | International, Naval, Sécurité

White House Orders New Icebreaker Strategy For Coast Guard

“I certainly hope the Pentagon is not going to come back after studying this again, saying there's no need," for more Arctic infrastructure, said Sen. Dan Sullivan. "The infrastructure is not fine. It doesn't exist. And we need it to exist.”

By on June 09, 2020 at 5:37 PM

WASHINGTON: The White House today ordered a major rethink of current plans for a new Coast Guard heavy icebreaker fleet, calling for the ability to launch drones, install intelligence-collection systems, and consider “defensive armament” to “defend against threats by near-peer competitors” and consider the “potential for nuclear-powered propulsion.”

The call to consider new designs for at least three ships already slated to be built over the next half-decade is a sure sign of growing concern in Washington over Russian and Chinese advances in putting more heavy, nuclear-powered ships in the water while the US remains stuck with just two 40 year-old operational breakers. The Coast Guard already has plans for three new, non-nuclear icebreakers to be built by 2026, with several medium icebreakers to follow in later years. It's not clear if the White House is asking for a complete redesign of those ships, but the memo clearly indicates a desire to expand their capabilities significantly.

The memo gives acting Homeland Security secretary Chad Wolf, in conjunction with the State and Defense departments, just 60 days to come up with a plan to run a study of how to build a new icebreaking fleet that consists of “at least” three heavy polar-class security cutters that are “operationally tested and fully deployable by Fiscal Year 2029.”

The ships should be able to perform “the full range of national and economic security missions (including the facilitation of resource exploration and exploitation and undersea cable laying and maintenance),” the memo states, a clear nod to worries that both China and Russia are rushing to secure natural resources long trapped under the polar ice caps.

The Pentagon and Navy are slated to take part in the snap 60-day assessment, which includes a demand for recommendations for least two new bases in the US, and at least two new international bases.

At least one of those bases would likely be in Alaska, meeting a years-long demand from Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, who is waiting for the Pentagon to finish a study on a potential strategic port in his state later this summer.

Sullivan managed to get language in the 2020 defense authorization bill ordering the Pentagon to study new ports in Alaska, after years of the military saying there was no need.

“At long last, the federal government has woken up to the fact that the Arctic is a region of great strategic competition,” the senator said in an emailed statement. “Unfortunately, our adversaries are well ahead of the United States when it comes to Arctic infrastructure.” Noting his efforts to bring the Pentagon's attention to these issues, he added, “this presidential memo will add weight to these efforts and will send a signal to our adversaries and those who are laying claim to the Arctic that the United States will not cede ground in this strategic location.”

Pentagon officials have said privately that refurbishing existing ports in Alaska for military use would be expensive, and they're not fully convinced there is a need. Sullivan, aware of those arguments, added, “I certainly hope the Pentagon is not going to come back after studying this again, saying there's no need. The infrastructure is not fine. It doesn't exist. And we need it to exist.”

One congressional staffer who is familiar with with the issue said part of the problem Arctic advocates have encountered is that “there is no clear official within the Department of Defense that handles Arctic issues,” and despite some efforts on Capitol Hill to create a new deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Arctic, military leaders see the region as “not as high a priority as some other things — the Department of Defense seems to be one of the last federal agencies in the country to understand the strategic importance and relevance of the Arctic.”

While the Coast Guard already has an icebreaker plan in hand, this new White House push might scramble those if the executive branch demands significant changes to the class, the first of which is slated to begin construction in 2021.

As Washington ponders the possibility of building nuclear-powered icebreakers, two Russian companies are already at work building the world's most powerful nuclear breaker, the first step in an ambitious new Arctic strategy Moscow hopes will open lucrative new shipping routes in the Arctic. The country currently operates 40 icebreakers along the Northern Sea Route in the high north. Moscow has also unveiled plans to build dozens of non-nuclear new icebreakers in the coming years, including at least 13 heavy icebreakers, nine of which would be nuclear-powered, if plans laid out by Russian President Vladimir Putin hold.

For its part, China has already matched the US in the number of icebreakers it has in its fleet, though only one of the two was built domestically. Beijing has expressed a desire to float a nuclear-powered breaker at some point in the future, though plans remain unclear. The first ship, MV Xuelong, was built at a Ukrainian shipyard but has since been upgraded by Chinese shipyards.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/white-house-orders-new-icebreaker-strategy-for-coast-guard

Sur le même sujet

  • Here are the biggest weaknesses in America’s defense sector

    2 juillet 2019 | International, Sécurité, Autre défense

    Here are the biggest weaknesses in America’s defense sector

    By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Production of a component vital to protecting American troops from chemical attacks that can't keep up with need. Key suppliers of aircraft parts that could go bankrupt at any time. A key producer of missile components that closed for two years before the Pentagon found out. These are just some of the key findings of an annual report from the Pentagon judging the greatest risks to the defense industrial sector, underlining that while the overall defense industry continues to bring in massive profits, not all is well among the suppliers of key components that, while small pieces of larger systems, could impact America's ability to wage war. The annual “Industrial Capabilities” report, quietly released May 13 by the Defense Department's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, found that despite total dollars spent by the department on weapons and ammunition increasing year over year since 2016, the number of vendors supplying them has decreased. In addition, while the report found generally positive trends for the U.S. defense sector, it did warn that in certain areas, foreign weapon sales are decreasing. For instance, the U.S. saw its market share of global naval weapon exports go from 63 percent in 2007 to just 17 percent in 2017. And from 2008-2017, two reliable buyers of U.S. defense goods — Pakistan and South Korea — saw their U.S. procurement percentages drop. Pakistan went from 31 percent to 12 percent, while South Korea went from 78 percent to 53 percent. This is the first Industrial Capabilities report to be published since the October release of a White House-mandated study on the defense-industrial base. That study concluded, in part, that the government needs to increase use of its Defense Production Act Title III authorities, which allows the government to expend funds to support key production lines that might now otherwise survive. The latest report says that through March 2019, seven presidential determinations were issued to address “key industrial base shortfalls in lithium sea-water batteries, alane fuel cell technology, sonobuoys production, and critical chemicals production for missiles and munitions.” However, details of those agreements, such as how much funding might go toward fixing the issues, were pushed into a nonpublic appendix. Here are the biggest concerns, broken down by sector: Aircraft: The report cites long product and system development timelines, high costs for development and qualification, and limits on production as broad issues in the aircraft sector. Those issues are inherent in major defense programs, but the report also calls out the aging workforce and consolidation among the industrial base, which “has expanded into the sub-tiers of the supply chain, creating additional risks for single or sole source vendors.” As an example, the report notes there are only four suppliers with the ability to manufacture “large, complex, single-pour aluminum and magnesium sand castings” needed to make key parts of military aircraft. These four suppliers face “perpetual financial risk and experience bankruptcy threats” due to the insecure nature of Pentagon funding. “The single qualified source for the upper, intermediate, and sump housing for a heavy-lift platform for the Marines has experienced quality issues and recently went through bankruptcy proceedings,” the report adds. “Without a qualified or alternate qualified source for these castings, the program will face delays, impeding the U.S. ability to field heavy-lift support to Marine Corps expeditionary forces.” Finding qualified software engineers is another issue identified, with the report warning it is “increasingly difficult to hire skilled, cleared, and capable software engineers. As aircraft continue to increase in software complexity, it will become even more important for the sector to hire skilled software engineers.” Ground systems: The report says the Pentagon's plan of incremental updates to existing systems rather than wholesale new designs has created “a generation of engineers and scientists that lack experience in conceiving, designing, and constructing new, technologically advanced combat vehicles.” But the same issues of consolidation and lack of budget stability that showed up in the aircraft sector impact the ground vehicle sector. “Legislation and DoD industrial policy requires DoD to manufacture all large-caliber gun barrels, howitzer barrels, and mortar tubes at one organic DoD arsenal,” the report cites as an example. “There is only one production line at the arsenal for all of these items, and policy modifications to meet demand and surge from overseas have led to a lack of capacity to meet current production requirements.” Shipbuilding sector: When it comes to maritime vessels, the “most significant risks found were a dependence on single and sole source suppliers, capacity shortfalls, a lack of competition, a lack of workforce skills, and unstable demand,” the report found. The lack of competition goes from the highest levels, where four companies control the seven shipyards building military vessels, to the lowest components, such as “high-voltage cable, propulsor raw material, valves, and fittings.” Workforce concerns also dominate the shipbuilding sector. The report cites statistics from the Department of Labor predicting that between 2018 and 2026, there will be a 6–17 percent decrease in U.S. jobs in occupations critical to Navy shipbuilding projects, “such as metal layout (ship-fitting), welding, and casting.” If that is not addressed, a lack of skilled workers “will significantly impact the shipbuilding industry's ability to meet the Navy's long-term demand.” Munitions sector: A major concern in last year's annual report was the future of the U.S. munitions sector, and many of those issues remain in the 2019 version. The report identified “multiple risks and issues, including material obsolescence and lack of redundant capability, lack of visibility into sub-tier suppliers causing delays in the notification of issues, loss of design and production skill, production gaps and lack of surge capacity planning, and aging infrastructure to manufacture and test the products.” As an example, the report points to a voltage control switch, used in ignition devices and flight termination systems for Department of Defense missiles. Several years ago, the foundry that made a key component for the switch was purchased by another foundry, which then decided to close the factory. The Pentagon was not informed until two years after the foundry was closed, at which point “it became evident that the end-of-life buy, which was designed to last from three to five years, would only last six months.” In another case, two key chemicals in solid-fuel rocket motors became obsolete, requiring the DoD to scramble for potential replacements. Chemical, biological and radiological sector: The chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense sector provides protection for war fighters through items like respirators, masks and vaccines. But the report found serious issues regarding the industrial base's ability to provide that capabilities, indicating that Title III authorities might be needed in the near future to maintain production. As an example, the report points to production of ASZM‑TEDA1 impregnated carbon, a defense-unique material with only a single qualified source that, as a result, “precludes assurances for best quality and price.” The carbon is used in 72 chemical, biological and nuclear filtration systems, and the report notes that current sourcing arrangements “cannot keep pace with demand.” The DoD is already using Title III to modernize the production line and try to establish a second source for the material. Soldier systems: The collapse of the American textile market over the last three decades has left the department depending on single sources or foreign suppliers for soldier systems. Additionally, battery production is identified as a potential future issue. “Lack of stable production orders has resulted in lost capability and capacity, increased surge lead times, workforce erosion, and inhibited investments by remaining suppliers. Surge-capacity-limiting constraints occur at several points along the value chain, from raw material to final battery assembly,” the report says. Space systems: Aside from major issues around future threats to space assets from near-peer competitors, the report identifies major industrial base concerns for space as including “aerospace structures and fibers, radiation-hardened microelectronics, radiation test and qualification facilities, and satellite components and assemblies.” Other areas include solar panel development — “There is not enough space business for companies to justify R&D to improve cells without [government] help,” the report says — the erosion of the traveling-wave tube industry, and a lack of suppliers for key parts needed to produce precision gyroscopes needed for spacefaring systems. Electronics: The Pentagon has been sounding the alarm about China's growing power in the printed circuit board market, and this report continues that trend. The United States now accounts for only 5 percent of global production, representing a 70 percent decrease from $10 billion in 2000 to $3 billion in 2015, per the report. Meanwhile, almost half of global production comes from China. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/06/27/here-are-the-biggest-weaknesses-in-americas-defense-sector/

  • DIA announces winners in massive intelligence technology contract

    19 septembre 2018 | International, C4ISR

    DIA announces winners in massive intelligence technology contract

    By: Brandon Knapp The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) awarded spots on a contract worth up to $500 million to eight defense companies and one research organization as part of the agency's effort to buy research, development, technical, and engineering services for intelligence missions, according to an announcement from the Department of Defense Sept. 14. DIA selected AT&T, Booz Allen Hamilton, Harris Corp., KeyW Corp., Leidos Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp., Macaulay-Brown Inc., Northrop Grumman Corp., and Southwest Research Institute for the procurement program, known as HELIOS. The companies won five year contracts that include five additional one-year options. The award winners will have multiple opportunities to compete for task orders on the indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity contract in support of DIA Directorate for Science & Technology missions. Unclassified documents released in 2017 describe in part the scope of HELIOS as offering support services for “sensor technology focus areas including Measurement and Signature Intelligence” as well as “cross-cutting technology areas such as unattended remote sensing, robotics...and data processing, exploitation and dissemination.” Mission areas for HELIOS include space situational awareness, foreign counter space threats, the Internet of Things, data exfiltration, and rapid prototyping. The Virginia Contracting Activity received nine responses to their original open solicitation posted in Dec. 2016. All nine solicitors received a contract with a minimum award of $10,000. The HELIOS program has an estimated completion date of September 2028. https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/2018/09/18/dia-announces-winners-in-massive-intelligence-technology-contract

  • BAE Systems confident on future growth despite UK defence review
Toutes les nouvelles