Sponsored by Exensor
05 Jan 23. Reed, Inhofe warn Biden AUKUS risks becoming ‘zero sum game’ for US Navy.
“We are concerned that what was initially touted as a ‘do no harm’ opportunity to support Australia and the United Kingdom and build long-term competitive advantages for the U.S. and its Pacific allies, may be turning into a zero-sum game for scarce, highly advanced U.S. SSNs,” wrote the SASC heads.
Two key US lawmakers sent a warning shot to President Joe Biden over concerns that the AUKUS trilateral security agreement could imperil America’s submarine fleet, according to a letter obtained by Breaking Defense.
“Over the past year, we have grown more concerned about the state of the U.S. submarine industrial base as well as its ability to support the desired AUKUS SSN [nuclear sub] end state,” Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote in a Dec. 21 letter sent to the White House. “We believe current conditions require a sober assessment of the facts to avoid stressing the U.S. submarine industrial base to the breaking point.”
“We are concerned that what was initially touted as a ‘do no harm’ opportunity to support Australia and the United Kingdom and build long-term competitive advantages for the U.S. and its pacific allies, may be turning into a zero-sum game for scarce, highly advanced U.S. SSNs,” the two lawmakers continue, explicitly warning against any plan to sell or transfer Virginia-class submarines to Australia before the US Navy has met its current requirement.
At the time the letter was sent, Reed and Inhofe were the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the four key congressional panels overseeing the Pentagon. While Inhofe has since retired, Reed remains the SASC chairman in the new Congress — and hence remains one of the most influential voices on defense issues on the hill, with oversight on the AUKUS discussion.
AUKUS refers to the security pact announced in September 2021 between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. The highlight of the agreement involves the US and UK sharing highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology with their ally down under, so that Australia can develop and operate nuclear-powered submarines, or potentially receive American Virginia-class subs outright. Leaders of the three countries said at the time their respective governments would spend 18 months on a preliminary planning phase before advancing the agreement; that initial consultation period is scheduled to end in March.
“We urge you to adopt a ‘do no harm’ approach to AUKUS negotiations and ensure that sovereign U.S. national security capabilities will not be diminished as we work to build this strategic partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom over the coming decades,” the senators wrote Biden.
A spokesman for Reed declined to comment; the White House did not return a request for comment by deadline.
The senators outline the pressure the US Navy’s fast attack submarine program, the Virginia-class, has been under in recent years. They point out that although the program increased procurement from one to two boats per year in 2011, “just 1.2 Virginia-class SSNs have delivered, on average, per year over the past five years,” according to the letter.
In fact, a significant portion of the letter sends a clear signal to the White House: think twice before trying to send or sell Virginia-class subs to Australia.
“AUKUS options that would have the U.S. transfer or sell Virginia-class submarines prior to meeting [the Chief of Naval Operations’] requirements would make the US Navy less capable of meeting sovereign wartime and peacetime requirements. Make no mistake, we recognize the strategic value of having one of our closest allies operating a world-class nuclear navy could provide in managing long-term competition with an increasingly militaristic China.
“However, such a goal will take decades to achieve, and we cannot simply ignore contemporary realities in the meantime.”
The lagging deliveries for Virginia-class come despite the consistent funding lawmakers have provided both in response to annual budget requests as well as an additional $1bn to help prop up the supplier base and workforce development initiatives over the past five years.
“This increased funding has yet to improve performance appreciably, and an assumption that even more money will change this situation is not supported by the experience of the last 10 years,” Reed and Inhofe wrote. Now, to add to the building pressure, the Navy and its industrial base must prepare for serial production of the “higher priority” Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program, the letter adds.
The US Navy has long cited 66 fast attack submarines as its requirement in varying force structure assessments. The senators note that the service has only 50 boats in the fleet today and expects to see its inventory reduced to 48 by 2027 when older subs retire more rapidly than new ones are delivered.
The lawmakers also warn that not enough has been done to understand the legal impacts of AUKUS and where there could be hurdles.
“Just as the submarine industrial base constraints are real, so are statutory and regulatory constraints. We still have little understanding of what … permissions or waivers would be needed to realize the AUKUS SSN options,” the senators wrote. “These permissions or waivers are a serious matter and should not be taken for granted in negotiating any agreements.”
The senators’ concerns over the AUKUS deal come ahead of a critical first milestone for the relatively new agreement expected early this year.
Adm. Frank Caldwell, the Navy’s most senior admiral overseeing its nuclear submarine technology, said in November that he and his British and Australian counterparts are in the process of consolidating their final recommendations due to their respective governments in March.
Despite the fanfare of the initial announcement back in 2021, all three governments publicly have deferred the most crucial details about the arrangement as issues to be worked out during the 18-month planning process. With the deadline approaching, all eyes will be on the United States and United Kingdom to elaborate on the next steps in a process that, as the senators write, could take decades to deliver an Australian nuclear Navy.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, leading members of the 2022 House Armed Services Committee embraced the AUKUS agreement as a positive development for a key US ally and even passed legislation to help train Australian naval officers. But, hesitation remains about how far the US can go to help its friends, if that help would result in harming the US Navy’s own fleet.
“There’s been a lot of talk about well, the Australians would just buy a US submarine. That’s not going to happen,” Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., a top House defense hawk, said in December. “I just don’t see how we’re going to build a submarine and sell it to Australia during that time.”
Rear Adm. Scott Pappano, a top US Navy officer overseeing submarine construction, has expressed similar concerns.
“If you are asking my opinion, if we were going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now, without significant investment to provide additional capacity, capability to go do that,” he told the Mitchell Institute in Washington. “I won’t speak for the UK, but I think that exists for both the US and the UK where we’re looking right now.” (Source: Breaking Defense.com)
04 Jan 23. New F-35 engine deliveries suspended amid ongoing investigation. The U.S. military and defense contractor Pratt & Whitney have suspended deliveries of new engines for the F-35 fighter in the wake of a December mishap on a Texas runway.
The F-35 Joint Program Office said in an email to Defense News that the delivery of new F135 engines was paused Dec. 27, after what the JPO described as a “mutual agreement” involving itself, the Defense Contract Management Agency and engine-maker Pratt & Whitney.
The JPO said in the email that deliveries are paused while the investigation into the Dec. 15 mishap involving an F-35B continues, and as ground tests take place to identify the root cause of the accident.
Pratt & Whitney did not respond Wednesday to multiple requests for comment. Last week, the company said it could not comment on the mishap because it involves an ongoing investigation.
Video of that incident at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth showed the newly constructed F-35B hovering close to the ground before descending. The fighter bounced once and tipped forward; its nose and wing touched the ground as it started to spin around. The fighter’s Air Force pilot, who was performing a quality check flight for the Defense Contract Management Agency, safely ejected on the ground.
After that accident, Lockheed Martin, which makes the jet, halted acceptance flights of new F-35s at all three of its production facilities, including Air Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth.
This had the effect of also halting deliveries for the last two weeks of the year, which meant Lockheed delivered 141 F-35s in 2022, fewer than the contractually required 148.
Lockheed told Defense News on Dec. 30 it was on track to meet its delivery commitments before the mishap, and has continued to build F-35s. The company said it had nine completed fighters ready to undergo acceptance flights.
The JPO said in a statement last week to Defense News it had issued guidance restricting some higher-risk aircraft from flight operations while the investigation continued. The JPO later revised its statement to say it had recommended the flight operation restrictions until procedures are developed for their return to flight.
Defense News also learned last week the initial investigation into the Dec. 15 mishap, conducted by Naval Air Systems Command with JPO’s support, found a tube used to transfer high-pressure fuel in the fighter’s engine had failed. This discovery prompted the JPO to update its safety risk assessments for a small number of fighters.
The JPO said it is working with DCMA, Pratt & Whitney, and Lockheed Martin to develop procedures to lift the restrictions and resume acceptance flight operations, but doesn’t know how long the groundings will be in effect. (Source: Defense News)
Founded in 1987, Exensor Technology is a world leading supplier of Networked Unattended Ground Sensor (UGS) Systems providing tailored sensor solutions to customers all over the world. From our Headquarters in Lund Sweden, our centre of expertise in Network Communications at Communications Research Lab in Kalmar Sweden and our Production site outside of Basingstoke UK, we design, develop and produce latest state of the art rugged UGS solutions at the highest quality to meet the most stringent demands of our customers. Our systems are in operation and used in a wide number of Military as well as Homeland Security applications worldwide. The modular nature of the system ensures any external sensor can be integrated, providing the user with a fully meshed “silent” network capable of self-healing. Exensor Technology will continue to lead the field in UGS technology, provide our customers with excellent customer service and a bespoke package able to meet every need. A CNIM Group Company