Nouvelles

By Gina Harkins The winner of the next presidential election will be the first to fly in one of six new helicopters built for the commander in chief. Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin company, will deliver half a dozen VH-92A aircraft starting in 2021 as part of a new $542 million contract, Navy officials announced Monday. The six aircraft will be the first of 23 new presidential helicopters the company will deliver by 2023. The contract from Naval Air Systems Command includes support equipment, parts replenishment and spares, according to the announcement. Dave Banquer, Sikorsky's VH-92A program director, said the latest modifications to the aircraft make it capable of transporting the president anywhere around the world at any time. The aircraft has undergone rigorous testing and operational assessments, including on the south lawn of the White House, according to a Sikorsky news release. "The VH-92A has flown over 520 flight test hours establishing the aircraft's technical maturity and readiness of its mission systems," it states. The Quantico, Virginia-based Marine Helicopter One Squadron flies the aircraft that transport the president, vice president and foreign heads of state. The squadron includes a fleet of "White Top" VH-3D Sea Kings, VH-60N "White Hawks" and "Green Top" MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The VH-92A will "increase performance and payload over the current presidential helicopters," which have been flying for more than 40 years, a Navy release states. That includes better communication capabilities and maintainability. Most of the work on the new helicopters will be done in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, with some also taking place in New York, Maryland and Virginia. James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said the government and contract teams were able to move the deal into initial production at more than "$1 billion less than the program's cost baseline." Marines in Quantico have been learning how to fly the new helos since earlier this year on a new training device. The replica VH-92A cockpit gives pilots "mission-oriented flight training in a simulation-based training device," Sikorsky said in its release. "The training suite allows maintainers to hone their skills to effectively maintain the aircraft and practice troubleshooting," it states. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/06/11/sikorsky-gets-542m-navy-contract-build-6-new-presidential-helicopters.html

By SCOTT TURNER (Tribune News Service) — The U.S. Air Force has begun construction on a facility at Kirtland Air Force Base that will play a major role in defending the nation from attacks by other countries on U.S. satellites. The Air Force Research Laboratory's 26,000 square-foot, $12.8 million Space Control Laboratory will consolidate efforts now being conducted in six different facilities on the base. "Space is now a war-fighting domain," said Air Force Col. Eric Felt, director of the Space Vehicles Directorate at the base. "That doesn't mean we want war in space. We certainly don't. It doesn't mean we have to have war in space. ... If our adversaries attempt to counter us in that domain, we need to have the capabilities and the tools for our nation to counter that." At a groundbreaking ceremony at the base on Thursday, Felt said the new facility will help in that effort. He said the building will be a major addition to AFRL's research in advancing in "space situational awareness, command and control of space systems and the survivability of space assets." "This is a space control technology building," he said. "Space control starts with space domain awareness, making sure we know everything that is going on in space. From there, it goes to making sure we can protect ourselves in space, protect our assets that are up in space. "All the basic components that we need to do for that part of the mission is going to be developed here. The next generation cutting edge capabilities that our nation needs are going to be developed here. And if we do need to perform offensive operations in space, we will be working on those components as well." Brian Engberg, the chief of the space control technologies branch of AFRL's Spacecraft Components Division said researchers in the facility would be determining what satellites were doing. He also said researchers would not only be addressing threats from other countries, but "threats from the space environment itself." Work at the facility will also include the development of satellite technology. "Every satellite that we have up there needs to be resilient," Felt said. "It needs to be there when we need it. If we happen to be in a conflict with a peer competitor, our satellites have to have the defense capabilities when we need them the most." The facility will include office and lab space for 65 civilian and military contractors. It will contain a 5,000 square-foot high-bay laboratory space and more than 5,000 square feet of secure office, laboratory and meeting space. Enberg said scientists and researchers had input on the design, "making sure that everything going into this building will be exactly what we need in order to accomplish our mission, and integrate our people and our ideas better in an innovative environment in order to support our war-fighter mission." "We're looking forward to having a sufficient amount of space in order to collaborate with our industrial partners and our partners in government," he said. "We have many, many projects we are working on. This facility will be a great step forward." AFRL principal technical adviser Michael Gallegos helped lead the effort to bring the facility to Kirtland, an effort he said began about two decades ago. "It's a new state of the art facility that will equip our workforce with secure labs, secure conference space and all of the required lab support space that it needs," he said. Construction of the facility is expected to be completed in December 2020. The contractor for the project is KL House Construction Co. "This was envisioned 20 years ago, back before anybody thought of space as a war-fighting domain, back when space control was just a side project," Felt said. "There were visionary folks who saw our nation was going to need this, that our labs were going to need this." https://www.stripes.com/news/us/kirtland-air-force-base-gets-space-defense-upgrades-1.585666

By:Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Over the past several years, U.S. Defense Department leaders have gone from citing technical problems as their biggest concern for the F-35 program to bemoaning the expense of buying and sustaining the aircraft. But the reality may be worse. According to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News, the F-35 continues to be marred by flaws and glitches that, if left unfixed, could create risks to pilot safety and call into question the fighter jet's ability to accomplish key parts of its mission: F-35B and F-35C pilots, compelled to observe limitations on airspeed to avoid damage to the F-35's airframe or stealth coating. Cockpit pressure spikes that cause “excruciating” ear and sinus pain. Issues with the helmet-mounted display and night vision camera that contribute to the difficulty of landing the F-35C on an aircraft carrier. These are some of the problems with the jet that the documents describe as category 1 deficiencies — the designation given to major flaws that impact safety or mission effectiveness. Thirteen of the most serious flaws are described in detail, including the circumstances associated with each issue, how it impacts F-35 operations and the Defense Department's plans to ameliorate it. All but a couple of these problems have escaped intense scrutiny by Congress and the media. A few others have been briefly alluded to in reports by government watchdog groups. But the majority of these problems have not been publicly disclosed, exposing a lack of transparency about the limitations of the Defense Department's most expensive and high-profile weapons system. These problems impact far more operators than the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy customer base. Eleven countries — Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and the United Kingdom — have all selected the aircraft as their future fighter of choice, and nine partner nations have contributed funds to the development of the F-35. Taken together, these documents provide evidence that the F-35 program is still grappling with serious technical problems, even as it finds itself in a key transitional moment. And the clock is ticking. By the end of 2019, Defense Department leaders are set to make a critical decision on whether to shut the door on the F-35's development stage and move forward with full-rate production. During this period, the yearly production rate will skyrocket from the 91 jets manufactured by Lockheed Martin in 2018 to upward of 160 by 2023. Generally speaking, the department's policy calls for all deficiencies to be closed before full-rate production starts. This is meant to cut down on expensive retrofits needed to bring existing planes to standard. The F-35 Joint Program Office appears to be making fast progress, but not all problems will be solved before the full-rate production decision, said Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the Defense Department's F-35 program executive. “None of them, right now, are against any of the design, any of the hardware or any of the manufacturing of the aircraft, which is what the full-rate production decision is for,” he told Defense News in an interview. “There are no discrepancies that put at risk a decision of the department to approve us to go into full-rate production.” Nine out of 13 problems will likely either be corrected or downgraded to category 2 status before the Pentagon determines whether to start full-rate production, and two will be adjudicated in future software builds, Winter said. However, the F-35 program office has no intention of correcting two of the problems addressed in the documents, with the department opting to accept additional risk. Winter maintains that none of the issues represent any serious or catastrophic risk to pilots, the mission or the F-35 airframe. After being contacted by Defense News, the program office created two designations of category 1 problems to highlight the difference between issues that would qualify as an emergency and others that are more minor in nature. “CAT 1-As are loss of life, potential loss of life, loss of material aircraft. Those have to be adjudicated, have to be corrected within hours, days. We have no CAT 1-A deficiencies,” Winter said. Instead, the deficiencies on the books all fall under category 1B, which represents problems “that have a mission impact with a current workaround that's acceptable to the war fighter with the knowledge that we will be able to correct that deficiency at some future time,” Winter added. Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin's vice president for the F-35 program, said currently fielded F-35s are meeting or exceeding performance specifications. “These issues are important to address, and each is well understood, resolved or on a path to resolution," he said. "We've worked collaboratively with our customers, and we are fully confident in the F-35's performance and the solutions in place to address each of the items identified.” Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY LB&B Associates Inc., Columbia, Maryland, has been awarded a maximum $37,018,357 modification (P0006) exercising the third one-year option period of a one-year base contract (SPE60016D0493) with four one-year option periods for transportation services. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. This was a competitive acquisition with five responses received. Locations of performance are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, with a June 30, 2020, performance completion date. Using customer is Department of Defense. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 procurement and war-stopper funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Transaero Inc., Melville, New York, has been awarded a maximum $8,827,535 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a hydraulic manifold. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. Locations of performance are California and New York, with a June 5, 2024, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 Army working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Warren, Michigan (SPRDL1-19-D-0127). ARMY General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan, was awarded a $16,269,197 modification (P00082) to domestic and foreign military sales (Morocco) contract W56HZV-17-C-0067 to provide systems technical support for the Abrams family of vehicles. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation; Army working capital; foreign military sales; and other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $16,269,197 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity. NAVY General Electric Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, is awarded $9,211,724 for firm-fixed priced delivery order N0002419F4127 under a previously awarded basic ordering agreement N00024-18-G-4113 for LM2500 Single Shank Hot Section Kits. The material procured under this delivery order will be used to replace worn out nozzles and blades during the repair process, thus extending the life of the engine. Work will be performed in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by August 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $9,211,724 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. In accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1), this order was not competitively procured -- only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1872748/source/GovDelivery/

David Pugliese The criteria that will govern the selection of the winning bid to provide Canada's next fleet of fighter jets will prioritize strategic attack and foreign ground-strike capabilities, according to government documents obtained by Postmedia — guidelines that are seen to favour Lockheed Martin's controversial F-35. In 2010 the Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper selected the F-35 to replace the Canadian Forces' aging CF-18s, but later abandoned the plan after concerns about the technology used for the plane and its growing cost. During the 2015 election campaign Justin Trudeau promised that a Liberal government would not purchase the F-35, at the same time vowing to hold an open competition for the purchase of the country's new jet. Once in office, however, the Liberals backed away from their promise to freeze out the F-35 and the aircraft is now seen as a front-runner in the upcoming competition, with many supporters in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Though the Liberal government has highlighted the need to buy new jets to protect Canadian airspace and meet the country's commitments to NORAD, the procurement criteria obtained by Postmedia, currently in draft form, indicate the bidding process will assign additional weight to aircraft that excel at ground attack for overseas operations. Those criteria are seen to favour Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet, say industry representatives allied with Lockheed's rivals in the upcoming $19-billion competition. The evaluation criteria also place less emphasis on sustainability — something else that may play to the advantage of the F-35, which has been dogged by high maintenance bills. But Pat Finn, the Department of National Defence's procurement chief, says there is such a wide variety of requirements to meet in the competition that while some aircraft might be seen to do well in some areas, they may not excel in others. “Somebody may be better in a high-end scenario but they're worst for cost,” Finn explained. “That's why we say it's the whole piece” that will be considered in the competition. At this point four aircraft are expected to be considered: two U.S.-built aircraft, the F-35, and the Super Hornet, and two European planes, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Gripen. Finn said bidding companies must meet mandatory requirements when it comes to long-term sustainment of the planes. But industry representatives, both from Lockheed Martin rivals and those not directly involved in the competition, point out that beyond the mandatory requirements there is little emphasis on the important area of long-term maintenance and sutainability. So a company with an aircraft that costs relatively little to maintain won't get that recognition in the competition, they claimed. Finn said discussions are still ongoing with various companies and their feedback is being assessed. The request for proposals, which will outlined the final requirements for the aircraft, is expected to be released around mid-July, he added. Royal Canadian Air force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger said key capabilities for a new plane are survivability and having an operational advantage. “We are very confident we are actually meeting the requirements of NATO and NORAD,” he said, pointing to the requirements for the new aircraft. “Both of those missions are well represented.” Canada already changed some of the industrial benefits criteria of the competition in May to satisfy concerns from the U.S. government that the F-35 would be penalized or couldn't be considered because of how that program was set up. U.S. officials had warned that the F-35 development agreement Canada signed years ago prohibits partner nations from imposing requirements for industrial benefits. Under the F-35 agreement, partner nations such as Canada are prohibited from demanding domestic companies receive contracts for work on the fighter jet, those companies instead having to compete for work. Over the last 12 years, Canadian firms have earned more than $1.3 billion in contracts to build F-35 parts. The changes made in May would now allow some of those F-35 contracts to be considered when weighing the industrial benefits offered by the planes. The winning bidder will build 88 jets for Canada, and the first delivery is expected in the mid-2020s with the full capability available in the early 2030s, according to documents produced by the Department of National Defence. https://nationalpost.com/news/bidding-criteria-for-canadas-19b-fighter-jet-competition-will-emphasize-strategic-attack-and-ground-strike-capabilities-seeming-to-favour-the-f-35

by Michael O'Hanlon All is busy on NATO's eastern front. That was our main conclusion during a recent study delegation to Lithuania sponsored by the Lithuanian Ministry of National Defense and organized by the Atlantic Council. A lot is happening on the defense preparation front, and the overall security situation is improving considerably compared with a few years ago. But problems remain and work still has to be done, if deterrence and stability are to be ensured, and a potentially devastating war with Russia prevented. As many people will recall, the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with a combined population of some six million and combined military strength of some thirty thousand active-duty troops, joined NATO in 2004. All three border Russia, though in the case of Lithuania, that border is in the western part of the country (near Russia's Kaliningrad pocket). Lithuania's eastern frontier is shared with Belarus, a close ally of Moscow, at Vladimir Putin's insistence. Its southern border touches Poland, along the famed “Suwalki gap,” the narrow land corridor through which NATO would likely send most of its tens of thousands of reinforcements during any major crisis or conflict with Russia over the Baltics. All three Baltic states, plus Poland, are now among the seven of NATO's twenty-nine members that meet their obligations to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on their militaries, however imperfect a metric of burden-sharing that formal NATO requirement may be. In Lithuania's case, this represents a tripling of military spending since 2013. Give President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama some of the credit for recent increases if you wish. But give the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Poles the majority of the credit—with a nod, of course, to Vladimir Putin, who has done more to unify and motivate eastern Europeans' security efforts than anyone else this century. Since 2014, when Russia seized Crimea in Ukraine and stoked a conflict in Ukraine's east that continues to this day, NATO has been gradually fortifying its eastern flank, in the Baltic states and Poland. It now has a multinational battalion-size battlegroup (of about one thousand soldiers) in each of the three Baltic states, plus a larger U.S. brigade-sized presence in Poland (with occasional, but intermittent, American deployments into the Baltic states for exercising and signaling resolve). The battalion in Lithuania is backstopped by Germany, with additional major contributions from the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. These battalions are collectively described as the “enhanced forward presence” or eFP program, following NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve; the U.S. element is often described as the European deterrence initiative. Adding in those rotational deployments, there are some thirty-five thousand total NATO troops in the Baltics, with only a smattering of Americans on most days. Russia has well over one hundred thousand of its own recently-improved forces just across the border and could probably muster closer to two hundred thousand with little effort under the guise of an exercise, if it wished. The Lithuanians' recent defense efforts need to be put in perspective. The nation is resolute, with 80 percent supporting NATO forces deployed to its territory and all of the recent major presidential candidates—and eventual winner—favoring the ongoing defense buildup. But it does not seem paranoid, or on serious edge, even as the officials we saw were clear about the challenge and legitimately focused on progress. While a military budget at 2 percent of GDP, headed towards 2.5 percent, is an impressive defense effort, it does not reflect the dire sense of urgency of a society expecting imminent war. After all, the United States and Russia each spend more than 3 percent of GDP on their armed forces; in fact, NATO aimed for a 3 percent minimum during the Cold War, when the United States typically spent upwards of 5 percent of GDP on its military. And for all the enhancements to its two main combat brigades, Lithuania has restrained from fortifying the eastern and western flanks of the country with smart minefields or other barriers to invasion. For its part, NATO more generally has stationed the eFP forces but has not tied them into a truly integrated combat force; nor has it deployed many helicopters or air defense systems into the Baltic states. It certainly has not prestationed the seven brigades of capability that a 2016 RAND Corporation simulation estimated as necessary to constitute a viable forward defense position. The current level of effort, vigilant but tempered, strikes us as roughly appropriate to the circumstances at hand. While there are still conflict scenarios that can be imagined, it is hard to think that President Putin believes he could really get away with naked aggression against any NATO member, including those in the Baltic region. Even if NATO does not have an adequate forward defense in place against hypothetical Russian aggression, it does have a rather robust forward tripwire, combined with increasingly credible ways of rapidly reinforcing that tripwire in a crisis. Still, there are three additional lines of effort that Washington and other NATO capitals should pursue in the interest of greater deterrence, stability, and predictability in eastern Europe. First, as a recent Atlantic Council report, “Permanent Deterrence,” underscored, NATO should strengthen key pieces of its modest military presence in Poland and the Baltic states. Much of this can happen in the Polish/American sector, but elements of it should extend to the Baltics as well. It makes good sense to combine greater combat engineering capability for military mobility, so as to better move reinforcements into the east in the face of possible Russian opposition, together with plugging gaps in areas such as combat aviation and air defense, and pre-stocking certain equipment. Moscow may complain, but it cannot credibly view such additions as major NATO additions or provocations, especially because they are modest, and because Russian actions have necessitated them. Second, nonmilitary elements of NATO resoluteness need to be strengthened, too. As discussed in The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War over Small Stakes, there are various types of very small Russian probing attacks that could leave NATO flummoxed and paralyzed over how to respond. These attacks might not reach the threshold where all alliance members would wish to invoke NATO's Article V mutual-defense clause and send military forces in response, yet they could be too serious to ignore. NATO should conceptualize such scenarios and exercise crisis decisionmaking in advance while honing various economic and diplomatic approaches to complement any military responses. NATO also needs to develop more contingency plans for economic warfare with Russia that would provide alternative energy sources in a crisis. Lithuania's recent development of a liquefied natural gas terminal is exemplary in this regard. Third, while projecting resolve vis-à-vis Moscow, including retention of the EU and U.S. sanctions that have been imposed on Russia in recent years, NATO needs to rethink its broader strategy towards Russia. This strategy should include options for bettering relations in a post–Putin Russia. Various types of security architectures and arrangements should be explored and debated. For now, with a new president in Kiev, a concerted effort to help Ukraine reform its economy and further weed out corruption makes eminent sense. Things are moving in the right direction in eastern Europe, but there is considerable work left to be done. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the new book, The Senkaku Paradox; Christopher Skaluba is the director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/report-natos-front-lines-62067

DANIEL LEBLANC The federal government's plan to buy new fighter jets puts greater emphasis on the aircraft's ability to conduct “strategic attacks” in foreign countries than their capacity to defend Canada and North America from enemy incursions, government documents show. The importance awarded to the new aircraft's offensive and first-strike capabilities abroad, rather than their defensive capabilities in places such as the Arctic, is causing concerns among some companies in the running for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada's CF-18s, industry sources said. In particular, some manufacturers have told the government they are worried the process will end up favouring the Lockheed-Martin F-35 at the expense of bids from the Boeing Super Hornet, Saab's Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is built by a consortium led by Airbus. The industry sources who spoke about the matter were granted anonymity because federal rules prevent them from speaking publicly. Federal officials said they are aware of the concerns from various aircraft manufacturers and that government experts are reviewing the evaluation grid. The government is planning to launch the competition for new fighter jets by the end of July. “We are continuing to have discussions with the companies,” said Pat Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at National Defence. He added that 80 per cent of the technical requirements are related to NORAD and NATO operations, while the rest are needed to be able to respond to government missions in hot spots around the world. “We're in a good spot for a competition,” he said. Canada's defence policy, which was released in 2017, made it clear that the priority for the new fighter jets would be defending the country's territory. “The fighter aircraft fleet is a critical Canadian Armed Forces capability necessary to enforce Canada's sovereignty, enable continental security, and contribute to international peace and stability,” the policy said. David Perry, a military analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the acquisition process to this point gives the impression that foreign missions are more important than domestic ones. “At the high level, the optics of the way it is presented aren't very good at all,” he said. The federal government's assessment grid for the new fighter jets is based on an evaluation of all requirements worth a total of 100 points, with 60 points going to technical capabilities, 20 points to the acquisition and sustainment costs, and 20 points to the package of industrial benefits. The government has shared its draft evaluation grid with potential bidders, a copy of which was provided to The Globe and Mail. Of the 60 points going to technical requirements, 31.5 points are based on the aircraft's performance on six potential missions: conducting NORAD operations, intercepting a foreign aircraft carrying a cruise missile, carrying missions against maritime targets, detecting and attacking foreign aircraft such as enemy fighter jets, providing “close air support” in an attack against targets on foreign soil and participating in a “strategic attack” against a foreign country. The first two missions, which are seen to be domestic in nature, are worth a total of 3.5 points. By contrast, the mission worth the most points (12 out of 31.5, or nearly 40 per cent of the points in this category) is the one based on an aircraft's ability to conduct a first-strike “strategic attack” in a foreign country, which is known to be a forte of the F-35. The evaluation grid has led some companies to complain to the government that the process favoured the F-35 at the expense of their aircraft, industry and government sources said. Following complaints from the American government, the federal government changed last month the way it will evaluate the 20 points related to industrial benefits. Under a new process, Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft's acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment, but they will still be allowed to remain in the competition Before the changes were made, the F-35 could have been automatically disqualified because the international consortium that builds the aircraft doesn't allow for the provision of traditional industrial benefits. Of the 20 points that are attributed to the cost of the new aircraft, 10 are determined based on the acquisition costs and 10 are determined based on the sustainment of the aircraft after their purchase. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-puts-premium-on-fighter-jets-ability-to-conduct-attacks-on/

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — After evaluating two active protection systems in a demonstration late last fall and determining neither were the right fit for the Stryker, the Army is now evaluating how to protect one of its critical combat vehicle. “Unfortunately for Stryker, we have not found a system that is suitable for the platform,” Col. Glenn Dean, Stryker project manager told Defense News in a June 7 interview. The Army has found interim APS for both its Abrams tank and Bradley infantry fighting vehicle but has struggled to find one for Stryker. The service has moved quickly to field combat vehicle protection against rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles while it develops a future system. The service originally considered Herndon,Virginia-based Artis Corporation's Iron Curtain APS for Stryker, but decided in August 2018not to move forward in fielding it to Stryker units. In an effort to expand its search for an appropriate system, the Army then decided to host a demonstration in late fall last year of two additional systems: Rafael's Trophy VPS and Rheinmetall's Active Defense Systems. Signs the demonstration wasn't proving fruitful cropped up in March, when the service said they'd need extra time — an entire year — to evaluate options for Stryker. Dean said the Army was hoping they'd see promise in one of the systems at the end of the demonstration and be able to carry it through more complex characterization for better evaluation in order to make a decision. But as the demonstration wrapped up, the Army decided neither would work. “Both Rheinmetall and the medium-weight Trophy, both have maturity challenges, but the bottom line is that they turned out to not be a suitable fit for Stryker,” Dean said. “We did see some potential in systems,” Dean said, adding, “it is our desire to continue to evaluate them further so we can understand them at a greater level of detail.” Neither system received the same level of testing as Rafael's Trophy on Abrams, IMI's Iron Fist on Bradley or Iron Curtain, Dean said, and the systems could end up being the right fit for some future effort to outfit other vehicles such as the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, Mobile Protected Firepower and the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, “none of which we have identified APS solutions for yet,” Dean said. Through continued evaluation “maybe we will eventually learn something that brings us back to Stryker,” he added. Unlike Bradley and Abrams, Stryker is a relatively light-weight platform, Dean said. “It has challenges in its space, weight and power integration. It has proven difficult for us to find a system that is entirely suitable for integration.” And while no operational APS system evaluated so far seems to work for Stryker, the Army is still looking into ways to protect it as its value on the battlefield only increases with the addition of bigger guns and more expensive weapon systems. Under the Vehicle Protection System (VPS) program office, the Army is working on reactive armor improvements focused on Bradley and AMPV, but that could be of particular value for Stryker, Dean said. The Army's laser warning program that is tied to the Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) program could also contribute to Stryker protection. MAPS is a system under development with the Army featuring a common controller into which hard-kill and soft-kill protection can be plugged. And the Army will be conducting a demonstration with layered hard-kill and soft-kill protection capability later this year as part of culminating exercise for its MAPS program, according to Dean. “The soft-kill may ultimately prove to be particularly well suited for Stryker,” Dean said. Those soft-kill systems are jammers and smoke systems that help obscure and tend to take up relatively little space and are less expensive then hard-kill APS that require the reloading of countermeasures. The service is also studying what it may need for a future APS and plans to initiate a program in the late part of the next fiscal year, which could also be an opportunity to develop something more suitable for Stryker, according to Dean. While the Army does have plans to protect its combat vehicles from rockets and missiles, in a June 6 letter sent to Army Secretary Mark Esper, a group of 13 House lawmakers expressed concern the service isn't doing enough to outfit its current fleet with APS and asked the Army to explain why it hadn't requested any further funding for APS upgrades in the budget According to Dean, for Abrams and Bradley, “we are resourced to meet the requirements that we have on an urgent basis to outfit a limited number of brigades. We are doing analysis right now to support development programs of record in active protection.” He added, “What we are buying is not the end of APS activity, but it is the urgent requirements we have been given.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/10/active-protection-systems-demo-hits-dead-end-for-stryker-army-evaluating-next-steps/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — “Platform agnostic.” It's a term getting a lot of play from United Technologies CEO Greg Hayes and Raytheon CEO Tom Kennedy, in the wake of this weekend's surprise announcement that the two companies would be merging into a new firm,known as Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Neither company works as a platform producer, eschewing the production of aircraft or ground vehicles and instead focusing on the technology that makes them work. It's a business model that has produced well for both firms, and in a Monday interview with Defense News, the two CEOs made it clear they see no need to deviate now. “One of the first and foremost things we absolutely agree on is, we want to be platform agnostic,” Hayes said, noting that UTC sold off its Sikorsky helicopter unit almost five years ago because “we didn't like the programmatic risk associated with platforms.” “We'll supply all the content and all the systems, all of the offensive, defensive capabilities necessary to make the system successful, but we really think it's important that we remain agnostic among the platform providers,” Hayes added. Said Kennedy, “Neither of us essentially develop platforms or sell platforms. Why that's important is, really, the amount of capital that you have to go and spend in maintaining and creating these platforms kind of takes your eye off the ball relative to investing in technology moving forward. So that was a big feature, that both companies are platform agnostic.” Instead, both men said the new firm will remains focused on developing high-end technologies which can be inserted on, or in, platforms developed by the other major defense primes. With that goal in mind, the company is preparing to spend $8 billion in R&D funds in the year following its merger. When the merger is completed in early 2020, Kennedy will become chairman of the board, with Hayes serving as CEO. Two years later, Kennedy will step down, with Hayes adding the chairman title. One area Kennedy highlighted as having good synergies is hypersonic weapons, a major interest for the Pentagon. Raytheon has already been working on hypersonic missiles, including the guidance and control systems, but UTC's experience with propulsion and materials science might be able to help deal with a specific challenge for Raytheon's weapon designers. “It just turns out when you're flying at Mach 5, you really increase your temperature on all your surfaces," Kennedy said. "If you have a propulsion system, the air is coming in at such a high speed, that creates a significant amount of heat; it has to be dissipated in a very efficient way,” Kennedy said. “And one of the areas that the United Technologies has, really based in the Pratt & Whitney guys, is all the technology that they've developed over the years in working very high temperatures internal to their turbine engines,” he continued. “So not only do they have, I would call it the heat management capabilities, but also the material science to go implement those.” Hayes identified two areas where shared R&D will have a near-term impact, and they underline the benefit of having a new company that will be roughly 50-50 defense and non-defense business. The first is on aircraft control systems, where each company has technologies that can be brought to bear for the FAA's next-generation air traffic control networks. The second comes in the form of cybersecurity. “I think Raytheon is second to none as it relates to cyber, and we view this as a core competency that can benefit the entire commercial aerospace ecosystem,” Hayes said. “Not just the connected aircraft, which is probably the first order of business, but the whole ecosystem. How do you protect passenger data, how do you protect the equipment that's on the ground? How do you protect the airplane while it's flying? “I think we'll see that shortly in the marketplace.” https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2019/06/10/why-the-new-raytheon-technologies-will-eschew-platforms-for-new-technology-development/