Sponsored by Bertin Exensor
www.exensor.com
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
16 May 24. US Senate sceptical of Navy’s submarine capacity pledge. After the capacity investment laid out in the FY2025 Budget, the Dept of the Navy championed its plan to the Senate for delivering an “historic level of throughput.”
In a US Senate Defense Appropriations Committee hearing on acquisition timelines, which took place on 15 May 2024, the Department of the Navy (DoN) stated that it is on track to deliver an “historic level of throughput” in submarine construction after several years of underperformance.
With new funds amounting to $11.1bn allocated to the submarine industrial base in the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Budget, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Nickolas Guertin was steadfast in his belief that the DoN could deliver more submarines.
At the moment, industry are already struggling to deliver just 1.2 boats per year.
An ambitious pledge
Probed by the Senator for Rhode Island, Jack Reed, Guertin projected that the latest budget investment will help the DoN deliver “more than two and a third” Virginia-class boats, “plus serial production of Columbia” class ballistic missile submarines.
Although Guertin stipulated that the Navy cannot deliver this pledge right now without the planned investment in infrastructure, he observed that “with the investments we are going to be executing over the course of the next few years, we are going to get to that point.”
He added: “the capacity we’re looking at right now is to improve the shipyards we have. In the near-term that’s where we need to put our money.
“We are actually looking at where else we might have shipyard capacity, but right now we’re driving more of the work out of the shipyards where they are right at the waterfront and to push more of that work into the other facilities that can support bringing those submarines together in the couple of places that are unique to that capacity.”
A sceptical Senate
Reed voiced his concern that the FY25 Budget, released in the first half of March this year, laid out plans to construct just one Virginia-class boat, while the Columbia development is “slipping.”
Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Sustainment, Dr. William LaPlante, suggested that “The [DoN] had the difficult choice of either adding to the backlog that was there or taking money and [investing] it in increased capacity, knowing that that’s going to be delayed before we see the increase. And it was the increased capacity that the Department chose to do.”
LaPlante continued to update the committee on the status of the Columbia programme in recent months, and forecast its future trajectory.
“With Columbia, we lost some ground in the [autumn], it looks like we’re gaining some of it back right now.
“The question is can we gain enough back to get the one year, which is the nominal, behind on Columbia to get that shortened… a lot of it has to do with technical data packages and work constructions getting to the workforce in a way that they can implement.” (Source: naval-technology.com)
14 May 24. House panel takes aim at Navy size, new capabilities in defense bill. A defense policy bill released this week by the House Armed Services Committee expresses concerns over the Navy’s aging cruisers, the cost and capability of a planned amphibious ship, development of capability to rearm vessels at sea, and more.
The language in the committee’s fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act represents a continuation of disagreements between lawmakers and the sea service. The panel in recent years has clashed with the Navy in regard to balancing readiness, fleet size and the creation of next-generation technology.
Here are some of the issues House lawmakers take issue with.
Fleet size
As has been the case for years, the House Armed Services Committee is limiting how many Ticonderoga-class cruisers the Navy can retire. The service in its FY25 plan asked to retire four: USS Philippine Sea, USS Normandy, USS Shiloh and USS Lake Erie.
The committee’s version of the NDAA “would prohibit the retirement of the Guided Missile Cruisers USS Shiloh (CG 67) and USS Lake Erie (CG 70)”, as well as prevent the Navy from retiring or laying up more than two other cruisers.
The bill also calls for the Navy to buy a second Virginia-class submarine in FY25. This move sticks to the broader plan to buy two a year, but deviates from the Navy’s FY25 request for one per year, which reportedly took committee members by surprise.
More broadly, the committee takes issue with the Navy’s latest annual long-range shipbuilding plan, its budget request, and inconsistencies on near-term fleet size from one year’s plan to the next.
“This section would require the Navy to be consistent in the first 10-year planning window of the annual 30-year Shipbuilding Report to Congress,” the language reads.
If a plan would reduce the total number of ships in the fleet in that first 10 years compared to the previous year’s plan, the committee’s language would require the Navy to submit an additional assessment to describe how that reduction would support the National Security Strategy, what resources it would free up, how much money the shipbuilding industrial base would lose out on, how this would affect shipbuilders and lower-tier suppliers, and what the reductions would mean for the ship classes in question.
New ship programs
The committee and other congressional panels have expressed skepticism of new ship programs following challenges with the Littoral Combat Ship and Zumwalt-class destroyer programs as well as the first-in-class aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford.
The House Armed Services Committee aims to exert additional oversight in its bill. The language asks for assurances from the Navy that, before construction begins, each new block of a ship will have its detail design completed, the Navy will obtain all information from its vendors about system maturity, and specifications will be finalized.
Specific to the current and future destroyer programs, the NDAA states: “The committee remains concerned about the ability of the Navy’s destroyers to meet future threats, especially as missile technology continues to advance.”
Noting the DDG(X) program for a next-generation destroyer will leverage both the Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt classes of destroyers, and that the Navy expects to spend more than $100 bn between 2019 and 2048 designing and building this class, the NDAA asks for:
- The comptroller general of the United States to review how the service is developing its requirements and acquisition plan for DDG(X).
- The status of the Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyers in their development, construction and testing phases.
- The status of the Zumwalt class in its development, testing and modification phases for a new mission of surface strike, which includes being outfitted with hypersonic missiles.
The bill also calls for information on how the Navy will select the best propulsion system for the new ship. It notes two potential technologies — permanent magnet and high-temperature superconducting motors — and suggests the Navy develop both now to avoid a “late-stage failure in the selected motor technology [that] could significantly derail the lead ship’s schedule.”
On the Landing Ship Medium program for the planned amphibious ship, the bill would prevent the Navy from spending any money to buy these ships until the service secretary certifies the ship design is predominantly based on commercial specifications.
The Marine Corps wanted to begin buying these ships, previously called the light amphibious ship, in FY22. The program was delayed for budget reasons, but the Navy, Marine Corps and Office of the Secretary of Defense have spent the intervening years debating how to balance the desire to make these craft cheap and plentiful versus the desire to make them survivable during combat.
The Corps’ original vision was a commercial design that would blend in with local shipping and therefore create a level of safety for the Marines and sailors onboard, rather than having a military design that stands out from local boats but can take a hit and defend itself.
The NDAA language specifies the design should “not [be] based on more than 35 percent military specifications” and that the Navy secretary must detail to the committee “the differences in cost and construction schedules between a ship design based on military specifications and a design that uses commercial standards and elements.”
Weapons at sea
The committee took particular interest in the development of a rearm-at-sea capability, which Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro has called a top priority, though it has so far eluded the service.
In one section, the NDAA would require the secretary to submit a strategy for delivering this capability to the fleet within three years of the bill becoming law. The strategy would outline current and planned spending on technology development as well as the anticipated cost and schedule to create this “transportable rearming mechanism equipment to load missile canisters into MK 41 vertical launch system cells on Navy destroyers operating” at sea.
The committee also notes it is “concerned that the Navy’s progress in developing this capability has been too slow and that the Navy’s leadership focus and resource investment is not sufficient to meet the Navy’s stated goals in this area. While the Navy has conducted demonstrations of certain steps in the process, significant challenges remain to be addressed before the Navy could effectively leverage this capability in a contested environment.”
It calls for a comptroller assessment of the Navy’s current and future spending and technology development efforts, as well as alternative courses of action.
The bill also calls for the comptroller to assess the Navy’s plan to develop and field long-range fires. It asks the secretary to brief the committee on plans to develop a passive long-range targeting kill chain system of systems, and how it will use additive manufacturing — or 3D printing — at the ship and unit levels. (Source: Defense News)
14 May 24. House bill would block F-22 retirements, keep buying Air Force F-15EXs. Some House lawmakers want to prevent the Air Force from retiring older F-22A Raptor fighters and keep the F-15EX Eagle II jets in production a year longer than the service had planned.
The House Armed Services Committee’s proposed fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act would also allow the service to cut 56 A-10 Warthogs.
The Air Force originally planned to retire 250 aircraft in FY25 as part of its budget request in order to save more than $2bn. Those retirements would include 32 of its Block 20 F-22 jets the service says would cost too much to prepare for combat.
The service had also planned to stop buying the Boeing-made F-15EX after FY25, capping the entire Eagle II program at 98. That would be six fewer than the total 104 the service had most recently planned to buy.
But the committee’s proposed NDAA, released Monday, would reverse those two decisions.
The FY23 NDAA stopped the Air Force from retiring those Block 20 F-22s through FY27. A congressional staffer told Defense News on Tuesday the latest proposed bill would keep the enacted provision in place, blocking the Air Force’s F-22 retirement plans.
The congressional staffer noted that lawmakers felt those F-22s — despite the cost associated with preparations for combat — are still relevant for a future fight.
“They’re still the best air superiority jets we have in the world today,” the staffer said.
The NDAA also would temporarily pause the Air Force’s plans to retire 26 of its F-15E Strike Eagles with less effective engines. Those jets could not be retired until six months after the Pentagon submits a study showing how many fighters the Air Force will need to meet geographical combatant commanders’ requirements. The staffer said F-15Es would be needed if a fight against China erupted later this decade.
The Air Force’s other requested retirements — including plans to retire 56 A-10 Warthogs, 65 F-15C and F-15D Eagle fighters, and 11 F-16 Fighting Falcons — would be granted in the NDAA, the staffer said. The Air Force says the A-10 attack plane would be too vulnerable in a fight against an advanced adversary and wants to retire the entire fleet by 2029. Congress long fought the Air Force’s A-10 retirement plans, but lawmakers’ opposition has thawed in recent years.
The NDAA would also add $271m back into the budget to buy an additional 24 F-15EXs in 2026, and keep Boeing’s production line for the updated fourth-generation jet active.
The additional jets would leave the Air Force with a total F-15EX fleet of 122 fighters. That would still be fewer than the 144 Eagle IIs the service originally planned to buy, but more than the most recent program of record of 98.
“We don’t want to limit options out there for us to continue the F-15EX line” in 2026, the staffer said. (Source: Defense News Early Bird/Defense News)
14 May 24. House defense bill retains spending caps, creates DoD talent officer. The House Armed Services Committee’s $883.7bn annual defense policy bill sticks to the military spending caps Congress imposed for fiscal 2025 as part of last year’s debt ceiling deal, according to a text of the measure released on Monday.
The spending caps authorize a 1% increase over the FY24 defense policy bill, which came in at $874.2bn. Despite the spending caps, House lawmakers seek to partially fund a second Virginia-class submarine – overruling the Pentagon request for just one attack submarine – even as they try to procure 10 fewer F-35 fighter jets than the Defense Department sought amid mounting frustrations with the program.
“Knowing the number, we wrote the best bill we could,” a senior House Republican staffer told Defense News on condition of anonymity to discuss the drafting process. “I think we balance all the risk – near-term and long-term risks – and developed a bill that meets all those things. I think we’re in a good spot on the number. I’m not worried about it.”
The bill also establishes a chief talent management officer at the Pentagon to improve recruitment, retention and workforce development for military personnel and civilian employees alike. Under the draft legislation, the defense secretary would appoint someone to the position.
Among other duties, that person would be tasked with overseeing “updates and reforms for remote and hybrid work” while identifying “rules, regulations, policies and guidance related to military and civilian talent management that require change for the purposes of achieving efficiencies and meeting personnel needs of the department.”
Another part of the bill would require the Defense Secretary to set up a pilot program “to determine the effectiveness of requiring a contractor to reimburse the Department of Defense for costs incurred” if the company launches a protest against a Pentagon decision.
A separate provision in the bill would identify several “promising” Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program grant recipients and formally make them part of the Pentagon’s budgeting process. The bill would also require the Defense Department to create a test and evaluation hub for in-demand technology at the Defense Innovation Unit.
Additionally, the draft legislation includes restrictions that prevent the downsizing of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
It retains language that has hindered the Biden administration’s prior efforts to retire the B83 nuclear gravity bomb, which is at least 80 times more powerful than the bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima during World War II. The bill would also require the military to deploy at least 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The bill would allow the military to develop an alternative warhead for the sea-launched cruise missile nuclear program, which Congress formally institutionalized last year over objections from the Biden administration. It also prevents the retirement of the W76-2 warhead unless the Pentagon certifies that Russia and China do not possess similar capabilities.
A report accompanying the draft text would require the Defense Secretary to report to Congress on the impact of a nuclear weapon detonation in space – a priority for Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, who called on the Biden administration in February to declassify intelligence related to Russian nuclear space capabilities.
Another report required in the draft bill would require the defense secretary to submit an assessment of lessons learned from last year’s coup in Niger and its impact on U.S. troops based in the country. That would include “a risk assessment of a basing options, particularly for drone operations, in each country in the coastal West African region under consideration.”
Niger’s junta repeatedly threatened to expel U.S. forces from the country and the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of the 1,000 U.S. troops stationed there last week. For weeks prior to that, Russian troops had taken up residence at the same airbase in Niger housing U.S. soldiers.
The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to mark up its defense policy bill next week, with the Senate Armed Services Committee to take up its version of the legislation in June.
13 May 24. HASC adds Virginia-class sub, cuts F-35s in $849.8bn draft defense policy bill. The House Armed Services chairman’s mark of the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act greenlights $849.8bn in funding for the Defense Department, sticking to congressionally-mandated budget caps but breaking with the president’s budget proposal on the F-35 and Virginia-class submarine programs.
The House Armed Services Committee draft version of the bill, released today, also includes $33.8bn in defense spending at other federal agencies such as the Department of Energy, for about $883.7bn total in national defense spending.
HASC is scheduled to “mark up” the bill during a marathon, all-day May 22 session where members will be able to offer amendments that could radically change the shape of the proposed legislation.
Although the dollar amounts laid out in the NDAA are just recommendations, as congressional appropriators are responsible for constructing the budget, HASC made two major funding changes on key weapons programs.
First, it adds $1bn for the Virginia-class submarine program — allowing the Navy to begin buying a second boat in FY25 — by zeroing out procurement funds for the Constellation-class frigate program due to delays.
The bill also proposes slashing 10 F-35s from the Pentagon’s request of 68 jets while fencing off funding for 10 additional jets — a measure senior staff members said is meant to free up funds that would allow Lockheed Martin to make needed investments to get the program on more stable footing. Among the stipulations is a mandate to resolve all deficiencies identified in the 2024 F–35 Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation report submitted by the Pentagon’s independent weapons tester and to create a “digital twin” of the F-35.
The Pentagon is currently not accepting deliveries of the F-35 as Lockheed struggles with validating software associated with Technology Refresh 3, which has contributed to lawmaker frustrations with the program, said a senior majority staffer.
A senior minority staffer added that some members questioned whether the program should be terminated but ultimately decided, “The answer is no. We need this program to succeed.”
One item that could turn contentious during full-committee debate of the bill is the fate of a total 578 Air National Guard members across six states who are currently performing the space mission, which the Space Force hopes to absorb.
HASC Chairman Mike Rogers’s mark of the NDAA contains language that would permit the transfer of those Guard members to the Space Force, but is crafted to be more narrow in scope than the Department of the Air Force’s original proposal, a senior majority staff member said.
The bill language would cap the number of affected Guard members at 580 and would force the Air Force to find new jobs for Guard members who do not want to transfer to the Space Force.
“We want to see how the governors react to this, and hopefully we acknowledge their concerns,” the majority staffer said. “Some of the things they’ve raised is, they won’t have the manpower to respond to civil disturbances or natural disasters. But these people are doing a space mission and we want them to maintain that space readiness … and that’s just something that they’re not doing right now.”
Additional highlights of the draft NDAA include:
- The mark would allow the Air Force to continue divesting the A-10, but prohibit retirements of the F-15E
- It approves multiyear procurement of the CH-53K helicopter used by the Marine Corps
- The mark prohibits the retirement of two guided missile destroyers, the USS Lake Erie and the USS Shilo
- Certain provisions would force the Army to brief the committee on how it plans to bridge the gap between the retirement of the RQ-7 Shadow and the fielding of future tactical unmanned aerial systems
- Citing concerns with the cancellation of the Army’s Extended Range Cannon Artillery program, it mandates that the Army provide an assessment of how current formations would perform in the current battlefield environment for both counter unmanned aerial systems and long-range cannon fires, including whether new vehicles are being considered
- One provision calls for the Air Force and Navy to deliver a report on inventory requirements for air-to-air munitions, including the cost-benefit of developing an extended range AIM–120D missile
- The mark does not address findings from the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution on how to reform the budget process, with the majority staffer saying that while the commission “did a good job,” it will be up to the Pentagon to decide how it will act on recommendations to its internal processes
- The draft bill requires a detailed report from the Pentagon’s Chief Digital & AI Officer (CDAO) on its efforts to scale CJADC2, the hoped-for future meta-network to connect all US forces across land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. In the provision, HASC notes that only four Combatant Commands — CENTCOM, NORTHCOM, EUCOM, and INDOPACOM — have involved themselves extensively in building CJADC2 systems, and “the committee believes there are needs across all the combatant commands.”
The Senate Armed Services Committee will mark up its own version of the defense policy bill from June 11 to 14 in a series of closed door meetings. (Source: Breaking Defense.com)
13 May 24. Pentagon seeks to expand special ops authorities for friendly nations. The Defense Department wants Congress to approve an expansion of special operations authorities to train and equip U.S.-aligned countries for irregular warfare against outside aggressors.
The Pentagon submitted a legislative proposal to Congress in April that would expand the scope of these authorities – usually reserved for counterterrorism, counternarcotics and border security activities – to include “resistance operations” and “foreign internal defense operations.”
“Investing in the capacity of Taiwan’s internal and layered defense apparatus is a significant effort; existing security cooperation operations, activities and investments only marginally address current needs,” the Defense Department argued in its proposal.
“Similarly, Scandinavian and Baltic countries in northeast Europe are at-risk due to possible Russian influence, incursion and conflict, and would be mutual benefactors with the U.S. of deliberate efforts to build partnership capacity for resistance operations to mitigate the threat from Russia and deter aggression.”
The proposal defines resistance operations as those in which “national security forces and the civilian government and populace of a country resist an invasion or occupation by an adversarial power.” It defines foreign internal defense operations as those “to protect a country and its populace from acts of subversion sponsored by a foreign country that pose a significant threat to the existing government.”
U.S. Special Operations Forces can already train and equip partner forces for certain missions under existing authorities.
For instance, Section 1202 authorities first established in the fiscal 2018 defense policy bill to respond to Russian’s support for Ukrainian separatists allow Special Operations Forces to arm proxies for irregular warfare in other countries. Those activities have so far largely been limited to intelligence-gathering operations.
The Pentagon proposal argues that adding “foreign internal defense operations” to irregular warfare authorities is needed “to address the relative instability of some African national security infrastructures.”
“Kenya is a prime example as their conventional and [Special Operations Force] units are growing in capacity, but their security infrastructure and institutional pillars are vulnerable to corruption, subversion, lawlessness, terrorism and civil war,” notes the Pentagon proposal.
The Biden administration has pledged $100m for Kenya to lead multinational forces in Haiti as part of a bid to restore stability amid mounting gang violence. Kenyan forces are due in Haiti at the end of the month, but the Defense Department has yet to finish construction on a base for them, Politico reported in April.
The Pentagon estimates that its proposed expansion of irregular warfare authorities will cost roughly $1.3m per year through FY29. Congress will consider the Pentagon’s legislative proposals as it marks up the FY25 defense policy bill in the weeks ahead. (Source: U.S. DoD)
14 May 24. DOD Releases Open Announcement Through Other Transaction Authority for U.S. and Selected International Partners. The Department of Defense (DOD) has released a new Open Announcement through the Defense Industrial Base Consortium Other Transaction Authority (DIBC OTA) that will accept unsolicited White Papers to be considered for Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III and Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) funding. DIBC membership is free and is open to U.S. organizations as well as international partners from the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and Canada. The FY24 National Defense Authorization Act designated the UK and Australia as domestic sources for DPA funds; Canada has been a domestic source since 1992.
“This Open Announcement will solicit new ideas for research or prototype project solutions that will benefit our industrial base,” said Dr. Laura Taylor-Kale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy (ASD(IBP)). “Expanding sources of supply is a key element of the vision articulated in the National Defense Industrial Strategy to help build resilient supply chains.”
The Open Announcement will significantly accelerate the timeline to project award, which will bring critical capabilities to the industrial base faster. This effort also supports the critical Supply Chain Resiliency Focus Areas identified as part of President Biden’s Executive Order 14017, On America’s Supply Chains.
“The new OA demonstrates the Department’s continued commitment to ensuring the integrity of our supply chains and providing our warfighters with the materials and technologies they need,” said Mr. Anthony Di Stasio, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Resilience.
The critical sectors sought under this Open Announcement include:
- Kinetic Capabilities
- Energy Storage and Batteries
- Castings and Forgings
- Strategic and Critical Materials
- Microelectronics
- Workforce Development
The Open Announcement is currently accepting White Papers and will remain open until September 30, 2024. Learn more at the DIBC OTA website here.
The DPA Investments Office is overseen by the ASD(IBP)’s Manufacturing Capability Expansion and Investment Program (MCEIP), in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Resilience. For more information on MCEIP, please visit: https://www.businessdefense.gov/ibr/mceip/index.html
About the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy (OASD IBP)
The OASD IBP works with domestic and international partners to forge and sustain a robust, secure, and resilient industrial base enabling the warfighter, now and in the future. (Source: U.S. DoD)
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
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
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————