Nouvelles

The J-20B has overcome agility problems to finally be considered a fully fledged fifth-generation fighter, military source says Aircraft still will be fitted with Russian engine but ‘Chinese version could be ready in a year or two' A modified version of China's first stealth fighter jet, the J-20, has formally entered mass production, with upgrades earning it a place as a fifth-generation fighter jet, according to a military source close to the project. The moment was marked at a ceremonial unveiling of the modified J-20B stealth fighter jet on Wednesday attended by many senior military leaders including Central Military Commission (CMC) vice-chairman General Zhang Youxia, the source said. Zhang is the second-ranked vice-chairman of the CMC and is in charge of weapons development for the People's Liberation Army. “Mass production of the J-20B started on Wednesday. It has finally become a complete stealth fighter jet, with its agility meeting the original criteria,” the source said. “The most significant change to the fighter jet is that it is now equipped with thrust vector control.” Thrust vector control (TVC) allows pilots to better control the aircraft by redirecting engine thrust. In 2018, China debuted its J-10C multirole fighter – fitted with a WS-10 Taihang engine – at the China air show in Zhuhai, putting the aircraft through its paces in a performance that indicated that China had succeeded in thrust technology. While the TVC technology had been applied to the stealth fighter, the J-20B would still use Russian Saturn AL-31 engines because more work needed to be done on China's WS-15 engine, the source said. Chinese engineers have been developing high-thrust turbofan WS-15 engines for the J-20, but that work has fallen behind schedule. “The Chinese engine designed for the J-20s still failed to meet requirements, but its development is going quite smoothly, and it may be ready in the next one or two years,” the source said. “The ultimate goal is to equip the J-20B fighter jets with domestic engines.” China was thought to have built about 50 J-20s by the end of 2019, but problems with the jets' engines delayed further production plans. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth assembly plant in Texas delivered 134 F-35 stealth fighters in 2019, three more than its target and 47 per cent more than its output in 2018, according to the company. China's first batch of J-20s entered service in 2017 when the US decided to deploy more than 100 F-35s to Japan and South Korea that year. The J-20 was meant to be a fifth-generation fighter jet on a par with Lockheed's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning multirole strike fighters. Fifth-generation fighters are defined by their stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, super manoeuvrability, and highly integrated avionics. But the earlier version of the J-20 was described by Western media as a “dedicated interceptor aircraft” because of its lack of agility. “The launch of the J-20B means this aircraft now is a formal fifth-generation fighter jet,” the military source said, adding that Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), which manufactures the J-20s, had received “heavy orders” from the PLA. CAC set up its fourth production line in 2019, each one with a capacity to make about one J-20 a month. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3092839/chinas-stealth-fighter-goes-mass-production-after-thrust

Joe Anselmo Michael Bruno July 10, 2020 When he was United Technologies Corp. chairman and CEO, Greg Hayes took a lot of heat for merging his company with Raytheon to create aerospace powerhouse Raytheon Technologies. But the critics have been silenced as defense has cushioned the company from the battering the commercial downturn has inflicted on its Collins Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney operations. Hayes spoke via videoconference with AW&ST Editor-in-Chief Joe Anselmo and Senior Business Editor Michael Bruno. AW&ST: How long will it take the commercial aviation industry to recover from the COVID-19 crisis? Initially, we thought this was going to be like the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002-03. We thought it was going to be relatively short-lived, where air traffic would go down for a little while but then gradually recover. I don't think any of us envisioned the morbidity or the scope of this pandemic and its impact on travel. I would say we're looking now at getting back to 2019 in 2023, maybe 2024. It is going to be a slow recovery. Raytheon chief looks ahead Commercial aviation recovery will take years Investing in hypersonics Game-changing technologies for a next-generation narrowbody The good news is we've got plenty of liquidity. We'll see our way through this, but it is going to be a tough road. We are hunkering down for a protracted recession on the commercial aero side. Our aftermarket orders are down 50%-plus at both Collins Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney. That's where a lot of the profits come from. The reason we can spend $2.5 billion a year on R&D for the commercial businesses is because we have this spares business that generates strong cash. When that goes away, it's tough. And as a result, we're going to cut R&D this year by $500 million on the commercial side. Unfortunately, the airlines are not in a position to weather this storm for probably more than another 12 months without government assistance. That's really going to be the key. Do governments in the U.S., Europe, South America and across Asia step up to support what is a critical industry in aerospace? Is the industry underplaying the severity of the COVID-19 downturn? A vaccine is the key, and it has to be widely available. The World Health Organization is working on that, but we're going to have hotspots with this pandemic for the next year or two. So even if the U.S. and Europe are completely vaccinated, what does that mean for travel to Africa, Asia, to the fast-growing markets? I'd almost bifurcate the aerospace industry between a narrowbody recovery and widebody recovery. The narrowbody is primarily domestic, whether it's Europe, the U.S. or even China. That will recover more quickly as people become confident-—there's either a vaccine or they've found new treatment options. But on the international side, we can't fly today into Europe, and we don't want the Europeans to fly to the U.S. We can't go to South America or China. Those routes are going to take much, much longer to recover. The fact is there are so many excess aircraft out there right now that we believe you're going to see more parting out of existing fleets before we see a resurgence. And that's why even when passenger traffic starts to come back, there's probably a full 6-12 months before we're going to see a return to normalcy in our aftermarket organization. Pratt supplies the PW1000G engine option for the Airbus A320neo. How much downside risk is there for -deliveries? We're planning for about a 40% reduction in A320 deliveries this year and next year compared with February 2020 production rates. Airbus would love to build more, but it's not clear to us that customers are going to be around to take more than that. The good news is our market share went from about 42% [of A320neo engines] to north of 50% in the last year. Customers are starting to believe in the geared turbofan because of the fuel efficiency. Do you see the market share between Airbus and Boeing shifting? The order book for the A320 is much stronger today, with all the cancellations that we've seen on the 737 MAX because of delays. We still think the 737 will get back in the air this year, and we continue to work with Boeing on software updates. We firmly believe it's a great aircraft. Keep in mind we have about $2.5 million of content per shipset on the 737. It's going to be a tough couple of years, but we ultimately have faith in the airframe and the certification process. Where are you focusing your future efforts with Boeing and Airbus? We were optimistically cautious about the [proposed Boeing] new mid-market airplane (NMA), but there is a lot of excess capacity now, and it's not clear another evolutionary design is going to be the answer. So our focus right now is the next-generation single--aisle. And we think that's probably been pushed out a couple of years, to maybe 2033 or 2035. They're talking about a 30% efficiency gain from the current single-aisle. Two-thirds of that gain has to come from engine design. At the Paris Air Show last year, we talked about a hybrid electric design [Project 804]. We're going to continue on that path. We're trying to figure out how you can have enough power at takeoff while having a much lower fuel consumption at cruise. And that's where hybrid electric comes in. It's going to take us at least a decade to prove that out. I don't know if hybrid electric is the answer. There are other things that we're working on. But obviously it's got to be something completely different than what we've been building in the past. Governments around the world are taking on huge debt to alleviate the coronavirus crisis. Are you worried that will put pressure on military spending over the long term? You would have to have your head in the sand to not understand what's going to happen to defense budgets over time. When [Raytheon CEO] Tom Kennedy and I first talked about this merger, it was, “What can we do together that we can't do separately?” And it really was bringing the technologies of the two companies together to solve customer problems in new and innovative ways. Defense budgets will go down, but I think the real question is where Defense Department spending is going. I remember talking two years ago with [then-Defense Secretary] Gen. [James] Mattis, and he said, “Bring us innovative solutions, not to fight the last war but to fight the next war.” And the next war, he said, is going to be fought in cyberspace and outer space. The capabilities of the legacy Raytheon business are second to none in space and are outstanding on the cyber side. You marry that up with the manufacturing and material science that Pratt & Whitney brings, with the communication systems that Rockwell Collins brings, and this is going to be a great play. The U.S. Air Force wants more software-driven capabilities, delivered in weeks or even days. How does that square with your businesses, which often involve long-term hardware evolutions? It's making sure that we're continuing to evolve our products. The missiles we're delivering today, such as the SM-3 [interceptor] or the SM-6 [anti-air/anti-surface/-ballistic missile defense] are state of the art, and we continue to find new uses for them. A lot of things will change over time in terms of how the weapons are deployed. Think about the Storm-Breaker missile that we just demonstrated, which has the tri-mode seeker. It can do things the last generation of missiles could never do in terms of going through smoke, fog, dust and sand. The LRSO [Long-Range Standoff nuclear cruise missile] is another example. And the Tomahawk is an established product that we will evolve as the needs of the battlefield change to meet new requirements. That's really what we want to focus on: How do we continue software-driven solutions but also find ways to redeploy and reinvigorate the product line and bring new capabilities to the warfighter? Are you making long-term investments in hypersonics? Hypersonics are a destabilizing technology. There's only so much we can talk about, but we know we're behind the Chinese and probably behind the Russians. I think in 3-5 years we'll be on a level playing field. Our focus has been on defensive systems, using space-based assets to track hypersonics. It's nothing that a ground radar could ever do because they move too fast. And then countermeasures that we could use to defend against hypersonics is the bigger market. We're obviously investing. We've got a program, the HAWC [Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept], which is an air-breathing hypersonic missile that we're working on. I think we'll flight-test that later this year. Also think about the materials science that Pratt brings. The key to hypersonics is how to keep the electronics from getting fried when you're operating at something like 5,000F. We're investing in cooling materials—that will be one of the big bets that we're going to have to make. Tom Kennedy saw the need to make these investments, and we're going to do that. The other piece is on the space side. There's not a lot that we can say, other than that we think space will be the frontier that will differentiate us—that is, the defense of space assets, as well as using space assets to detect, track and target hypersonic weapons. When the merger of United Technologies and Raytheon was announced, there was a lot of criticism from investors. Now they're happy about how well-positioned the combined company is to weather the COVID-19 storm. There was a lot of pushback from investors, especially from the hedge fund guys. They saw us taking a lower-margin business, and they didn't like the fact that the technology takes 5-10 years to pay off. I was roundly criticized. All I can say is I was an idiot a year ago and now I'm a genius, through no fault of my own. We did this for the long term, and it was completely fortuitous that the merger happened when it did. The commercial businesses won't make any money this year, and they are going to struggle for the next couple of years, but now we've got a rock-solid balance sheet and a lot of cash. And that defense business is going to grow 5-8% this year. We've got a good backlog. I'd like to say it was genius, but it really was just doing what's right for the long term. My goal is to leave this company better than I found it. You have reshaped this company, starting with selling Sikorsky to Lockheed Martin in 2015. Then you acquired Rockwell Collins and moved to break up the UTC conglomerate, and it looked like UTC was going to be a commercial aerospace company. Now comes Raytheon. Are you done, or is there more to come? I'm never done until I'm gone, but we don't need to do anything else big. The driving force [behind the Raytheon merger] was putting two big technology companies together with cyclical balance [between commercial and defense]. Tom Kennedy always felt he was at a disadvantage against the Lockheeds of the world because of the scale of Lockheed versus Raytheon. This gives us the scale to invest and compete head on with the Lockheed Martins and Northrop Grummans, as well as being the largest supplier to both Boeing and Airbus. We have some clout in the marketplace. We've got 700,000 different things that we deliver to customers: missiles, APUs, engines, communications gear. Some we really love; others don't have the returns that we want or require too much investment for a limited market. We hope to have a portfolio review done by the end of the year. And you'll probably see some divestitures, but not big pieces. We also continue to look for technology bolt-ons as we think about what's next in defense and the space and cyber spectrums. Longer term, the big question in my mind is what happens to Rolls-Royce, a great technology company that is facing challenging financial circumstances. We loved the partnership Pratt had with Rolls on International Aero Engines. Could we recreate that someday? Perhaps, but not now. Ian Davis, who's the chairman over there, is a good guy. We always say, “Look, we need to find ways to collaborate so we can take on GE Aviation.” Despite the fact that GE may be on its heels today, they've got over 30,000 engines out there. Their aftermarket will recover, they will get better, and they will be the formidable competitor for both Rolls and Raytheon Technologies for the foreseeable future. We're hearing from Wall Street that you're expected to sell off the Forcepoint business. Forcepoint is a commercial cyber business Tom Kennedy created when he brought a couple of companies together about five years ago. It has some great technology, but it clearly doesn't fit in the portfolio. We'll figure that out in the next six months. How is the integration going? Nothing went according to plan except the merger itself. We sent everybody home the week of March 12 [because of COVID-19], and we were still three weeks away from the merger. So we had to complete the merger and all of the integration remotely. And we had to spin off Carrier and Otis. All of that came to fruition on time and exactly as we had planned while working from home. The resilience and the ingenuity of our folks to figure all this out has probably been the most pleasing. There was some concern that the cultures at Raytheon and the commercial guys at Pratt and Collins would never come together. That is the last thing I worry about. Everything we laid out has gotten done. We're on track for synergies in cost, technology and revenue. The difference is I have yet to have a staff meeting in person. I've got 17 people who work for me, and we do everything on Zoom. Each one of our three board meetings since the merger has been done on Zoom. If you had told me 3-4 months ago that we would be working from home for a good deal of time, I'd have really panicked. But we figured it out. https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/ad-week-video-interviews/raytheon-technologies-ceo-riding-out-covid-19-crisis

Tony Osborne July 10, 2020 https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/closer-look-european-aerospace-defense-programs

HASSAN MEDDAH RAFALE , COVID-19 , L'USINE AÉRO , AÉRONAUTIQUE , HAUTS-DE-SEINE PUBLIÉ LE 10/07/2020 À 11H06 Quand l'activité civile flanche, le marché militaire peut prendre le relais. À condition d'avoir déjà un pied dans la place et une vision à long terme. A Villeneuve-la-Garenne (Hauts-de-Seine), la vingtaine de compagnons de la PME Rafaut ne chôme pas. Dans leur atelier de mécanique et d'intégration, ils assemblent des emports, d'imposantes pièces mécaniques destinées à Dassault Aviation. Ces pièces qui se placent sous les ailes des Rafale servent à transporter soit des bombes, soit des réservoirs d'appoint. "Notre dualité est un facteur de robustesse, particulièrement appréciable dans cette crise du secteur aéronautique", se réjouit Bruno Berthet, le président de Rafaut. Les activités de défense ont représenté un véritable amortisseur pour cette PME de 400 salariés, dont les commandes pour Airbus (palonnier, freins de rotors...) se sont écroulées avec la crise du secteur aérien. Rafaut présente le profil quasi parfait de l'entreprise dite duale, avec ses 93 millions d'euros de chiffre d'affaires, répartis équitablement entre les activités civiles et militaires. Le groupe a, certes, fait appel à des mesures de chômage technique, mais de manière modérée en mettant 30 % de son personnel en activité partielle pour deux tiers de leur temps de travail. Pour les autres PME du secteur aéronautique, la défense peut-elle constituer une bouée de sauvetage ? Le ministère des Armées veut y croire et met la main à la poche. À l'occasion de l'annonce du plan de sauvetage de la filière aéronautique, début juin, Florence Parly, la ministre des Armées, a annoncé l'accélération de 600 millions d'euros de commandes militaires. L'armée de l'air a commandé trois long-courriers A 330 qui seront transformés en avions ravitailleurs MRTT. Initialement prévus en 2026, ils seront livrés à partir de l'an prochain. Le troisième exemplaire de l'avion léger de surveillance et de reconnaissance qui devait être livré en 2027 le sera en 2023. Les hélicoptéristes ne sont pas oubliés. L'armée va acheter par anticipation huit hélicoptères Caracal. Ils sont destinés à remplacer les Puma dès 2023, soit avec cinq ans d'avance. Enfin, les PME devraient être les principales bénéficiaires d'une commande de drones de surveillance pour la marine à livrer dès 2022. Des accréditations spécifiques "L'ensemble de ces commandes répond à un besoin opérationnel existant de nos forces armées. Nous allons simplement aller plus vite. Cette anticipation nous permettra de sauvegarder plus de 1 200 emplois pendant trois ans, et cela, partout en France", a précisé Florence Parly. L'initiative n'est pas totalement désintéressée. Le ministère ne voudrait surtout pas voir disparaître des fournisseurs stratégiques emportés par la crise économique. Depuis plusieurs semaines, ses équipes pilotent une task force interministérielle forte d'une centaine de personnes. À charge pour elles de quadriller le territoire, visiter les usines et les bureaux d'études, et d'identifier les entrepreneurs et les domaines à risque. Au total, près de 1 500 entreprises seront visitées. Les entreprises tentées de se diversifier vers la défense doivent impérativement avoir une vision de long terme... comme celles des armées qui s'appuient sur une loi de programmation militaire pluriannuelle. Sur la période 2019-2025, le ministère a consacré la part du lion de son budget à l'aéronautique pour renouveler ses flottes d'appareils, d'hélicoptères, de drones. Soit un montant de 19 milliards d'euros ! Toutefois, il serait illusoire de croire que toutes les PME de l'aéronautique pourront en bénéficier d'un simple claquement de doigts. "Pour servir les armées, les fournisseurs doivent passer par des dispositifs d'accréditation. C'est un long processus. Par ailleurs, ce n'est pas simple d'intégrer comme fournisseur un programme d'armement déjà lancé comme le Rafale ou l'A400M. Les tickets d'entrée sont chers", avertit Matthieu Lemasson, expert des questions aéronautiques et défense pour le cabinet PWC. Le cluster Normandie AeroEspace (NAE), qui regroupe plus d'une centaine de PME de l'aéronautique, est bien conscient de la difficulté. Il a lancé des actions tous azimuts pour accélérer leur diversification et notamment une formation pour obtenir une habilitation et une accréditation défense, sésames indispensables pour travailler dans le domaine de l'armement. Le cluster monte également des rencontres avec des représentants du ministère des Armées, de la Direction générale de l'armement (DGA), des grands industriels de l'armement pour connaître les opportunités à saisir... Avec un exemple à suivre : la PME Gauthier Connectique, fabricant de raccords électriques. Cette société (40 salariés, 5 millions d'euros de chiffres d'affaires) était, il y a dix ans encore, exclusivement positionnée sur l'aéronautique. Déjà présents sur le Rafale, ses raccords électriques sont en passe d'être homologués pour monter sur le M51, le missile stratégique de la dissuasion nucléaire. L'entreprise s'est également diversifiée dans le secteur spatial qui représente un tiers de son activité. "Entre la décision de se diversifier, et les premières commandes, il faut compter environ trois ans. Le fait d'avoir déjà comme clients Dassault Aviation, Safran et Thales nous a beaucoup aidés", souligne son président Luc Sevestre. La PME ne compte pas s'arrêter en si bon chemin. L'entreprise adapte sa technologie au milieu marin et terrestre et tente de séduire Naval Group, de même que Nexter, le fabricant du char Leclerc. Boeing mieux armé qu'Airbus pour traverser la crise ? Airbus va-t-il souffrir plus que son concurrent Boeing pour traverser la crise actuelle ? Si l'avionneur américain traîne le boulet du 737MAX, il a un atout considérable par rapport à son concurrent européen : le soutien du Pentagone, le premier acheteur au niveau mondial d'équipements militaires. Pour les forces armées américaines, Boeing livre à foison des avions de combats (F15 et F18) et des ravitailleurs (KC 46), des hélicoptères d'attaque et de transport de troupe (Chinook, Apache), des missiles... Au total, les activités de la branche défense, sécurité et espace ont pesé pour 34 % de son chiffre d'affaires en 2019, soit 76 milliards de dollars. Pour Airbus, l'activité défense pèse moins de 15 % des activités du groupe, soit 10 milliards d'euros de chiffres d'affaires en 2019. Le groupe avait raté l'occasion historique en 2012 de fusionner avec le britannique BAE Systems. Une telle opération aurait permis d'équilibrer les activités civiles et militaires de l'avionneur, le rêve de Louis Gallois, le président du groupe Airbus (alors EADS) entre 2007 et 2012. « À l'époque, les mauvaises langues disaient qu'il n'y avait pas d'intérêt et peu de synergies à cette opération. Cela aurait probablement constitué un ensemble plus robuste pour traverser la crise actuelle et permis de trouver des synergies utiles aussi bien en matière de gestion des effectifs que des programmes », souligne Matthieu Lemasson, expert des questions aéronautiques et défense pour PWC. https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/la-defense-planche-de-salut-de-la-filiere-aeronautique.N982761

Nathan Strout The Pentagon's artificial intelligence hub is shifting its focus to enabling joint war-fighting operations, developing artificial intelligence tools that will be integrated into the Department of Defense's Joint All-Domain Command and Control efforts. “As we have matured, we are now devoting special focus on our joint war-fighting operation and its mission initiative, which is focused on the priorities of the National Defense Strategy and its goal of preserving America's military and technological advantages over our strategic competitors,” Nand Mulchandani, acting director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, told reporters July 8. “The AI capabilities JAIC is developing as part of the joint war-fighting operations mission initiative will use mature AI technology to create a decisive advantage for the American war fighter.” That marks a significant change from where JAIC stood more than a year ago, when the organization was still being stood up with a focus on using AI for efforts like predictive maintenance. That transformation appears to be driven by the DoD's focus on developing JADC2, a system of systems approach that will connect sensors to shooters in near-real time. “JADC2 is not a single product. It is a collection of platforms that get stitched together — woven together ― into effectively a platform. And JAIC is spending a lot of time and resources focused on building the AI component on top of JADC2,” said the acting director. According to Mulchandani, the fiscal 2020 spending on the joint war-fighting operations initiative is greater than JAIC spending on all other mission initiatives combined. In May, the organization awarded Booz Allen Hamilton a five-year, $800 million task order to support the joint war-fighting operations initiative. As Mulchandani acknowledged to reporters, that task order exceeds JAIC's budget for the next few years and it will not be spending all of that money. One example of the organization's joint war-fighting work is the fire support cognitive system, an effort JAIC was pursuing in partnership with the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and the U.S. Army's Program Executive Office Command, Control and Communications-Tactical. That system, Mulchandani said, will manage and triage all incoming communications in support of JADC2. Mulchandani added that JAIC was about to begin testing its new flagship joint war-fighting project, which he did not identify by name. “We do have a project going on under joint war fighting which we are going to be actually go into testing,” he said. “They are very tactical edge AI is the way I'd describe it. That work is going to be tested. It's actually promising work — we're very excited about it.” “As I talked about the pivot from predictive maintenance and others to joint war fighting, that is probably the flagship project that we're sort of thinking about and talking about that will go out there,” he added. While left unnamed, the acting director assured reporters that the project would involve human operators and full human control. “We believe that the current crop of AI systems today [...] are going to be cognitive assistance,” he said. “Those types of information overload cleanup are the types of products that we're actually going to be investing in.” “Cognitive assistance, JADC2, command and control—these are all pieces,” he added. https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2020/07/08/pentagon-ai-center-shifts-focus-to-joint-warfighting-operations/

By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The Pentagon would have $758 million to help mid-tier defense firms weather the financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic as part of the annual defense spending bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. But the aid, which was part of the panel's proposed $694.6 billion bill, falls short of the “lower double-digit billions” Pentagon officials say defense firms will claim under the stimulus bill Congress passed in March. As Congress debates the next stimulus, the defense industry has been urging lawmakers to appropriate enough to reimburse the Pentagon's suppliers for pandemic-related disruptions. Under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, contractors can seek to recover such costs, but Congress has yet to appropriate money for it. “While helpful and our industry appreciates the recognition of the need in the HAC mark and all the support we have received from the Pentagon and Congress to date, this level is insufficient to provide the support indicated previously by [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and also by company leaders who have been communicating with the Pentagon, the Congress and the White House, including [the Office of Management and Budget],” said National Defense Industrial Association Vice Chairman Arnold Punaro. “We are urging that the next stimulus bill provide the needed funds particularly to support section 3610, the reasonable adjustments due to disruptions, and the added costs of protecting the workforces and doing business in a COVID-19 environment,” he added. Not all of the details of the defense bill were available Wednesday, but a committee summary says it provides “$758 million to mitigate the impacts of COVID on second, third, and fourth tier suppliers in the Defense Industrial Base.” Such support would supplement $688 million for the defense-industrial base that the Department of Defense previously set aside as part of the $10.5 billion it got from the coronavirus relief fund created under the CARES Act. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord warned Congress last month that the DoD's pandemic-related costs, which include 3,610 claims, may nonetheless force it to dip into modernization and readiness accounts if Congress doesn't backfill the money. “The department does not have the funding to cover these costs,” she said. The House Appropriations Committee's bill is not the last word, and Republicans, who control the Senate and the White House, will negotiate over the final numbers. “FY21 appropriations bills must be changed before they have any chance of becoming law,” the panel's top Republican, Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, said Tuesday. This week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., began to outline a forthcoming GOP-drafted coronavirus relief package, but it was not immediately revealed what the Pentagon's share might be. House Democrats are reportedly seeking $250 billion in emergency spending for an array of issues, to include rural broadband and transportation infrastructure to health care and global coronavirus relief. As lawmakers reconcile these many priorities, at least one one influential lawmaker on defense ― House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash. ― has said repeatedly that the Defense Department should draw from its existing budget. The Project on Government Oversight's Mandy Smithberger said the Pentagon has yet to make the case that payments to the defense industry will be the best means to stimulate the economy. “Even though they often don't act like it, resources are still limited to a degree and Congress has to consider fairness as part of that distribution, including who needs the government's help most, and which sectors are going to do the most to help the country,” Smithberger said. “These companies have much better access to capital than a number of other industries and individuals. Even from a reviving-the-economy perspective, this sector has always been one of the poorer performers per dollar for job creation.” The health care and education sectors create more than twice as many jobs per $1 million than the military, and the energy and infrastructure sectors create 40 percent more, according a 2019 analysis by the Costs of War project at Brown University. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/07/08/house-panel-isnt-giving-defense-industry-all-the-covid-aid-it-wants/

Mark Pomerleau The Army is awarding delivery orders to three vendors to support equipment for three Expeditionary Signal Battalion-Enhanced (ESB-E) units. Specifically, the awards will support fielding of satellite baseband equipment, said Paul Mehney, director of public communications at Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical. Expeditionary signal battalions support units that don't have organic communications capabilities. These groups could include military intelligence battalions, chemical battalions, engineering battalions or air defense artillery branches. The ESB-E aims to be more mobile and require less equipment in order to drop in, support units and move more quickly on the battlefield. Overall, the vendors will be responsible for providing 48 baseband sets of equipment for each ESB-E formation. “Due to aggressive initial fielding timelines, after the first six ESB-E formations are fielded, the program office intends to open baseband capability competition for future ESB-E needs,” Mehney said. PacStar was recently awarded a contract to support the ESB-E program to provide its 400-Series modular platform to enhance tactical expeditionary communications, the company said in a July 7 release. The 400-Series is lightweight allowing these smaller and expeditionary units to maneuver more quickly. It includes 128 GB RAM, virtual routing and the PacStar 463 Radio Gateway. “Network modernization to meet warfighter needs and defense priorities is a core focus for the Army and across the DoD, and we are proud to support these efforts with PacStar 400-Series for ESB-E,” Peggy J. Miller, chief executive of PacStar, said in a statement. “With these solutions, ESB-E [Scalable Network Node] will get the smallest, lightest, modular tactical communications platform in the industry, which is part of our larger initiative to enable increased reliability and innovation for warfighters.” The other vendors include Klas and DTECH, with all three supporting one ESB-E. An additional delivery order for each vendor to a second ESB-E will be issued, meaning in the near future, each vendor will support two units a piece. After that, the Army will open up the contracts to competition. This approach follows how the Army has been experimenting to date by providing similar, yet comparable equipment to several ESB-E's. These companies have provided separate equipment to three units allowing the Army to gain useful feedback from units to see what they liked and disliked about the gear. This has allowed the Army to execute rapid prototyping and experimentation on a tighter timeline for making fielding decisions while providing equipment to soldiers in the interim. The first two ESB-Es fielded include the 57th ESB-E at Fort Hood and the 50th ESB-E at Fort Bragg. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2020/07/08/army-to-award-new-contracts-to-support-mobile-comms-units/

NAVY Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $56,100,000 not-to-exceed, undefinitized contract modification (P00018) to previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract N00019-19-C-0010. This modification provides systems integration engineering support and procures long lead material to ensure the ASQ-239 electronic warfare/countermeasures production capability remains on track to meet Lot 17 deliveries. This modification provides for the continuation of Block 4 electronic warfare development without creating a gap in engineering resources in support of the Navy, Air Force and non-Department of Defense (DOD) participants. Work will be performed in Nashua, New Hampshire (85%); and Fort Worth, Texas (15%), and is expected to be completed by December 2020. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $6,986,000; fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force) funds in the amount of $6,986,000; and non-DOD participant funds in the amount of $3,026,680, will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Liberty JV,* Yuma, Arizona, is awarded a $40,000,000 maximum amount, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity architect-engineering contract for environmental restoration projects at various locations in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Northwest area of responsibility (AOR). No task orders are being issued at this time. Work will be performed at various government installations within the NAVFAC AOR including, but not limited to, Washington (75%); Alaska (22%); Idaho (1%); Montana (1%); and Oregon (1%). The work to be performed provides for environmental restoration services under the Defense Department's Environmental Restoration Program, which includes the Installation Restoration Program and Munitions Response Program, complies with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and supports the Navy and Marine Corps base realignment and closure effort and similarly complex local and state environmental investigations. The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months and work is expected to be completed by July 2025. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $1,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Future task orders will be primarily funded by environmental restoration (Navy). This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website and four proposals were received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Silverdale, Washington, is the contracting activity (N44255-20-D-5006). Jacobs-EwingCole JV, Pasadena, California, is awarded a $29,944,543 firm-fixed-price task order (N62473-20-F-4714) under an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for post-award design services (PADS) and post-construction award services (PCAS) to support multiple construction projects related to the fiscal 2020 and 2021 military construction (MILCON) earthquake recovery and repair program at Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS), China Lake, California. The task order also contains one unexercised option, which if exercised, will increase cumulative task order value to $36,456,778. Work will be performed in Ridgecrest, California. The work to be performed provides for PADS and PCAS for various fiscal 2020 and 2021 MILCON and repair projects; 18 MILCON projects; and 25 repair projects will be constructed at NAWS China Lake as a part of the earthquake recovery program. The contractor will provide architect-engineer services to address any post-award design and construction related issues for the MILCON and repair projects. The contractor will also provide assistance to the government during the development of responses and requests for information from the contractors performing the construction effort for the projects. Work is expected to be completed by April 2024. Fiscal 2020 MILCON (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $29,944,543 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. One proposal was received for this task order. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N62473-18-D-5801). Salient CRGT Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, is awarded a $21,984,298 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, single award contract to provide support with program management, program planning and execution, Joint Staff actions process training, Actions Division customer service help desk services, strategic planning and analysis assistance, correspondence management and communications and editorial functions in support of the Joint Staff Actions Division. The contract will include a 60-month base ordering period, with no option period. Work will be performed in Arlington, Virginia (85%); Fairfax, Virginia (10%); and Suffolk, Virginia (5%). The ordering period will be completed by July 2025. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (O&M) (Defense-wide) (DW) funds in the amount of $10,000 will be obligated to fund the contract's minimum amount and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Subsequent task orders will be funded with the appropriate fiscal year O&M, DW funds. This contract was competitively procured with the solicitation posted through Navy Electronic Commerce Online and beta.SAM.gov website and 15 offers were received. The Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (N00189-20-D-Z023). Lockheed Martin, Baltimore, Maryland, is awarded a $16,345,048 firm-fixed-price contract for the refurbishment of rocket motors and thrust vector control used on vertical launch assemblies for anti-submarine rocket assisted torpedoes. If the option is exercised, the work will be completed by July 2023, bringing the total value of the contract to $30,630,048. Work will be performed in Baltimore, Maryland (44%); Dulles, Virginia (29%); and Owego, New York (27%). The base period of this contract is expected to be completed by October 2022. Weapons procurement funds (Navy) in the full amount of $16,345,048 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. One company was solicited for this sole-source requirement pursuant to the authority set forth in 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1) and one offer was received. The Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (N00104-20-C-K045). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY AM General LLC, South Bend, Indiana, has been awarded a maximum $44,095,015 firm-fixed-price requirements contract for High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle diesel engines with containers. 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 three-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Indiana, with a July 8, 2023, ordering period end date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2023 Army working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Warren, Michigan (SPRDL1-20-D-0118). Marlex Pharmaceuticals Inc., New Castle, Delaware, has been awarded a maximum $9,274,712 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for various pharmaceutical products. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. This is a one-year base contract with nine one-year option periods. Location of performance is Delaware, with a July 8, 2021, ordering period end date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 Warstopper funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2D0-20-D-0008). ARMY VS2 LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, was awarded a $36,672,648 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for logistics support services (maintenance, supply and transportation) at Fort Benning, Georgia. Bids were solicited via the internet with nine received. Work will be performed in Chattahoochee, Georgia, with an estimated completion date of July 8, 2025. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Army) funds in the amount of $2,077,440 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity (W52P1J-20-F-0305). Manson Construction Co., Seattle, Washington, was awarded an $8,330,800 firm-fixed-price contract for dredge work in the Mississippi River. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in Venice, Louisiana, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 30, 2021. Fiscal 2020 civil operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $8,330,800 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, is the contracting activity (W912P8-20-C-0030). DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IT Concepts Inc., Vienna, Virginia, was awarded a $26,308,755 labor-hour contract (HHM402-20-C-0038) to develop, update, sustain, operate and enhance a software tool capability to be used by members of the acquisition, requirements, operational and intelligence communities to support and aid in the identification of intelligence requirements, management of priorities, planning and production of intelligence products, enterprise data analytics, communication and other associated processes. Work will be conducted in Vienna and Charlottesville, Virginia, with an expected completion date of June 2025. Fiscal 2020 operations and management funds in the amount of $1,023,586 are being obligated at time of award. This contract was awarded through an 8(a) set-aside and five offers were received. The Virginia Contracting Activity, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE Innovative Scientific Solutions Inc., Dayton, Ohio, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $20,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity modification (P00005) to contract FA8650-13-D-2343 for advanced propulsion concepts and cycles research and development. Work will be performed in Dayton, Ohio, and is expected to be completed June 18, 2022. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,750,000 are being obligated at the time of award under task order FA8650-17-F-2009. Total cumulative face value of the contract is not-to-exceed $64,560,000. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Beavercreek, Ohio, has been awarded a $7,687,489 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Infrared Radiation Effects Laboratory (IRREL) operation and improvements program. The objective of this effort is to provide radiometric and radiation characterizations of focal plane arrays (FPAs) and associated devices. The effort includes developing innovative techniques to advance the state of the art in the characterization of infrared and visible FPAs and associated devices. These innovative techniques include the development of characterization and analytical techniques, test hardware and operational and test procedures that advance the experimental capabilities of the IRREL. Work will be performed in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed Oct. 10, 2025. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with one offer received. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $150,000 are being obligated at time of award. The Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, is the contracting activity (FA9453-20-C-0015). *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2269384/source/GovDelivery/

Lt. Gen. David Deptula (ret.) The United States' comparative military advantage has eroded significantly as the technologies that helped sustain its primacy since the Cold War have proliferated to great power and regional competitors such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. They have evolved their capabilities and operational approaches to negate and otherwise avoid traditional American warfighting strengths. The United States is highly unlikely to regain its competitive advantage through like-for-like replacements of its legacy platforms with incremental improvements while remaining beholden to industrial age notions of warfare focused on individual weapon systems focused on inflicting attrition. Instead, future success demands that the U.S. military embrace a new approach. Advancements in computing and information technology hold the potential to radically transform how military forces attain desired effects, where success depends foremost on the speed and integration of information. By harnessing information technologies to promote the rapid and seamless exchange of information across platforms, domains, services, and even coalition partners, commanders can make faster decisions and better integrate actions across domains. In such a manner, we can enable friendly forces to operate inside the adversary's decision-making cycle and impose multiple, simultaneous dilemmas that collectively confound and paralyze an adversary's ability to respond. To put it simply — it comes down to understanding the battlespace to know when and where to position forces to maximize their effectiveness, while minimizing vulnerabilities. Realizing this future vision of combat, however, faces challenges given legacy command and control (C2) systems and processes currently in use that were not designed for the speed and complexity that information age all-domain operations demand. Overcoming these constraints will require not just material changes involving technology, but also a shift in how the role of networks and information systems are perceived relative to weapons and platforms. Recognizing this, military leaders are pursuing joint all-domain command and control (JADC2) as the guiding construct to address these challenges. Undeniably an ambitious undertaking, the success of JADC2 will ultimately depend upon having a champion at the top of the Department of Defense that will guide the modernization of related policy, acquisition, and concepts of operations toward a common goal that all relevant stakeholders can understand and accept as the desired way forward. Progress to date Although U.S. forces can presently conduct multi-domain operations, current practices are far from what will be required when facing advanced adversaries. Each service branch and coalition partner organize, train, and equip their own forces, which joint force commanders then stitch together in a federated “joint and combined” employment construct. This ensures that military personnel and their communications and weapon systems can work together in a synchronized fashion. In other words, the services tend to develop their capabilities in a stand-alone manner focused around their primary operating domain without an overarching construct to ensure joint or allied partner interoperability. This often leads to strategies focused on deconfliction versus collaborative partnership or the interdependence required to achieve force multiplying effects with available resources. As a result, the employment of these capabilities is at best additive, rather than complementary where each one enhances the effectiveness of the whole, while compensating for the vulnerabilities of other assets, optimizing the force's overall capacity for dynamic exploitation of opportunities. The good news is the services agree that data is the principal currency of future warfare and that leveraging data through a network that connects forces across both domains and services to seamlessly collect, process, and share data will provide an asymmetric advantage in future conflicts. The bad news is that the services are pursuing a number of individual, stove-piped efforts aligned with their own distinct requirements. The development of concepts such as Multi-Domain Operations, Multi-Domain Command and Control, Distributed Maritime Operations, and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations, as well as their associated capabilities such as the Cooperative Engagement Capability and the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, have been sporadic and uncoordinated, consisting of dozens of programs being developed independently and lacking a coherent vision to align mission requirements and reconcile gaps or redundancies. To better streamline and synchronize these efforts under the JADC2 banner, the joint staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense created a joint cross-functional team including representatives from the offices of the DOD Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment. This body is charged with bringing the services together to develop the JADC2 construct by identifying gaps and requirements, enhancing experimentation collaboration, and recommending resource allocation for both materiel and non-materiel C2 capability improvements, while also being mindful of the distinct capabilities inherent in each service and government security organization. At the same time, the Secretary of Defense has tasked the joint staff to deliver a warfighting concept that outlines how the U.S. military plans to fight in the future — a much needed update to existing joint concepts that are becoming increasingly outdated. By describing the capabilities and attributes necessary to fight effectively in the future operating environment—including for JADC2 — this concept will inform the requirements that are produced by the joint requirements oversight council and pushed out to the services. This top-down guidance is critical to help inform bottom-up technological development and experimentation. Although each of the services has been active developing related technologies, the Air Force has taken the rare step of volunteering to lead JADC2′s development as a joint function. Currently, these efforts center on the Advanced Battle Management System — essentially a “combat cloud” to connect any sensor with any shooter across all domains—that the Air Force is using as its technical engine for enabling JADC2. To help field new capabilities as fast as possible and cultivate broader buy-in, the Air Force is partnering with the other services to conduct small-scale field demonstrations scheduled for every four months. The first experiment was completed in December 2019, which connected Air Force aircraft, Space Force sensors, Navy surface vessels and aircraft, Army air defense and fire units, and a Special Operations Team with incompatible data and communications systems to defeat a simulated cruise missile. These efforts are intended to develop both the architecture and the technologies required to implement JADC2. As currently envisioned, ABMS includes six key “product categories” and 28 specific “product lines” the Air Force intends to develop over time. Underpinning all these efforts is digital engineering, open architecture, and data standards that allow all the disparate elements to ‘snap' together. Obstacles remain Despite encouraging progress and widespread agreement of the necessity for JADC2 across the services and other relevant defense agencies in the DOD, significant obstacles remain before its full potential can be realized. Foremost among these challenges, current organizational structures and service cultures do not align well with JADC2′s emphasis on employing assets in service- and domain-agnostic ways that entail dynamically connecting sensors and shooters across domains and enabling multiple, rapid shifts in supporting/supported relationships. Specifically, JADC2 raises difficult questions regarding who has decision authority and risk acceptance. Although joint force commanders exercise operational control over joint forces and are tasked to maintain conditions for joint force success, the subordinate command structure tends to exacerbate military service and domain stovepipes that are resistant to ceding control over their assets. Similar frictions are likely to extend beyond a single combatant command, particularly in terms of integrating space and cyberspace capabilities, which have their own functional combatant commands. Of course, this assumes U.S. forces eventually reach a level of integration that makes resolving such relevant operational authorities necessary. The current service-based model for systems development and acquisition is not optimal for achieving the level of interdependency that JADC2 envisions. Given the complexity and number of programs likely to be affected by ABMS, the Air Force created the position of chief architect to ensure it acquires the right mix of capabilities in a coherent manner. However, the authority of that position does not extend to the other services, which are likely to focus on their own specific operating requirements as they fund and develop their components of JADC2′s technical architecture. Furthermore, ABMS technical demonstrations focused on connectivity have thus far outpaced development of the operational concepts it is intended to support. Consequently, JADC2 risks over-emphasizing communications and ubiquitous connectivity at the expense of effective battle management. This could have several deleterious implications for future operations. First, it could exacerbate the tendency of senior commanders to centralize control, usurping tactical level decisions. Second, the desire to push as much information as possible forward to the tactical edge could overwhelm warfighters, resulting in operational paralysis or chaos. Third, it could result in unrealistic communications demands, particularly in a conflict with China or Russia or their proxies where the United States' exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum will be fiercely contested. Lastly, given the enormous financial investment JADC2 entails, maintaining stable funding will present a continual challenge due to both the likely downward pressure on the defense budget resulting from the COVID-19 epidemic and because it is challenging to cultivate a constituency on Capitol Hill for ethereal “connections” and “data” compared to more tangible platforms, some of which the Air Force defunded in its latest budget proposal in part to fund further development of ABMS. Furthermore, JADC2 is likely to face ongoing scrutiny because the nature of the program does not lend itself to traditional methods of evaluation, as evidenced by the Government Accountability Office's recent report that was highly critical of ABMS. The path forward Navigating these challenges requires the highest level of direction from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and centralized, OSD-level management along the lines of the recently formed joint cross-functional team to champion overall JADC2 development. Using a DOTMILPF-P (doctrine, organization, training, materiel, interoperability, logistics, personnel, facilities, & policy) approach, the primary goal of this group should be to define a “template” to guide modernization policy, acquisition, and concepts of operation. The United States requires the distinct capabilities inherent in its separate military services and other defense agencies. However, they must be bound by a common vision for employing joint and combined forces, as well as an overarching strategy to realize the JADC2 concept. The United States cannot risk boutique solutions that do not integrate in a seamless, mutually reinforcing fashion. To achieve this, the OSD-level group must pursue four critical lines of effort: 1) establish standards and continuity so individual programs integrate within the greater JADC2 enterprise and secure desired outcomes in a timely fashion; 2) support effective programs and help them to maintain momentum and protection from competing bureaucratic interests; 3) engage across the military services and DOD agencies to respond to combatant command warfighting requirements, while also holding participating entities accountable; and 4) ensure industry is fully integrated into appropriate JADC2 development. If properly executed, JADC2 promises to provide commanders with “decision advantage” by allowing them to gather, process, exploit, and share information at the speed and scale required to defeat potential adversaries. At the same time, allowing joint and combined forces to distribute access to relevant information more widely, JADC2 must also enable new, more flexible command and control techniques that empower subordinate elements to effectively act when they become isolated. The ability to leverage capabilities across a network through the seamless and ubiquitous sharing of information could also ease requirements for systems that are currently expected to operate independently. The complexity inherent to this approach of overloading requirements on a given program drives lengthy development cycles, time and cost overruns, and delays in capability. Instead, by leveraging numerous redundant function options through a combat cloud, individual systems could focus on narrower requirements where their capability can be maximized while also minimizing cost and technical risk. Change will not come easy, particularly given how successful the United States has been using the traditional combined arms approach. However, such complacency could be disastrous, given that critical information technology advances are often measured in days, potentially enabling competitors with less dominant industrial combat means to leapfrog past legacy military concepts by investing in newer information technologies and capabilities. The United States' efforts to harness information are not being pursued in a vacuum—America's adversaries are pursuing similar concepts. JADC2 may be ambitious, but it is also imperative to gain a competitive advantage to deter and, if necessary, defeat those potential adversaries. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/09/moving-further-into-the-information-age-with-joint-all-domain-command-and-control/