Sponsored by Bertin Exensor
www.exensor.com
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
03 Oct 24. How many F-35s will be built?
Reopening the Tap
After more than a year without deliveries as Lockheed Martin worked to get the Block 4 software to a final release standard, the JPO relented on its position that they would only accept completed jets. Beginning in July 2024, Lockheed can now go to DD 215 sign-off with F-35s that have Technical Refresh 3 but not a final version of the software. According to LM Aeronautics CEO Greg Ulmer, Lockheed has already begun to ship US aircraft with version 351 Block 4 software and will follow with updated versions of international “353” software in late August.
The plan is to deliver seven of the parked jets each month along with 13 new production aircraft, with the goal of returning to delivery direct from production within 18 months.
Big Numbers
The Government Accountability Office announced in April 2024 that the F-35 program would cost much more than previously anticipated. Their sustainment cost estimates increased 44 percent, from $1.1trn in 2018 to $1.58trn in 2023, and GAO found that the jets are less available. DoD responded that cost per tail per year and cost per flight hour continue to decrease.
The main driver behind this increase appears to be the 11-year stretch in anticipated service of the F-35, which automatically significantly increases the anticipated cost. So, there may be less to this report than meets the eye.
Block 5 is Alive?
The GAO report also includes a very different and major tidbit: The program office expects to take capabilities out of Block 4 “that cannot be supported by the current F-35 engine and thermal management system.” That implies a jet with reduced performance, a Block 5 program to restore those capabilities someday, or both. Confirming that, Lt. Gen. Michael J. Schmidt, the F-35 program executive officer, recently told Congress the Block 4 is being “re-imagined,” with some of its elements being deferred from the late 2020s to the mid-2030s.
When can the full suite of capabilities be included? The program plans to deliver F-35 aircraft equipped with the upgraded (ECU) engine in 2032. “In addition to modernizing the engine, the program is considering upgrades to subsystems, including PTMS, electrical power system, and fuel thermal management system, that may be needed to provide power and cooling to post-Block 4 capabilities. The program has not determined a specific solution for modernizing these subsystems.”
Most Recent Orders
- In May 2024, Portugal announced its interest in acquiring 27 F-35As.
- Israel ordered another 25 F-35As in June 2024.
- In late February 2024, Singapore, already holding orders for twelve F-35Bs, announced it would also order eight F-35As.
- In February 2024, the US announced the sale of 40 F-35s to Greece, possibly in response to the approval of a similar number of F-16s for Turkey. The first 20 were put under contract in July 2024, for delivery in 2028.
- In September 2023, the U.S. State Department approved the sale of 25 more F-35s to South Korea. The Korean government announced intent to acquire more past the original 40 (without specifying quantity) in December 2023.
- Also in September 2023, the Czech Republic approved acquiring 24 F-35As for delivery from 2031 to 2035.
- In August 2023, Romania announced and intent to purchase 48 F-35As. An initial order for 32 worth $6.8bn would be followed by 12 somewhere down the road.
How Many Will Be Built?
Regarding total output, the Marines will get at least their 324 B-models since they resisted buying any F/A-18E/F/Gs, but in 2020 they started cutting back on Cs.
The Navy will probably get around 160 F-35Cs, but again they’re the least enthusiastic customer. The C will therefore be the most marginal variant, with total production in the 270 range.
The Air Force will get 1,000-1,400, depending on B-21, and on the prospect of a sixth-gen air superiority fighter (NGAD), or even of some kind of Gen 4.5 aircraft (which may now be flying in the black). With the F-15EX buy concluding at 104, subsequent fighter procurement funds will move to F-35.
Abroad, the UK RN/RAF will get at least 60 B versions. The RAF may buy the F-35 as a Tornado replacement.
The total export market is at least 1,400 aircraft, and maybe as high as 2,500. It depends, largely, on unit prices, and of course emerging new generation jets such as GCAP/Tempest or FCAS. (Source: Teal Group)
02 Oct 24. GAO Report: Columbia-Class Submarine Costs May Exceed Estimates by 6x, Navy Lacks Oversight on $2.6bn in Spending. A new audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has revealed that the U.S. Navy’s Columbia-class submarine program is facing severe cost overruns and delays. The GAO report, released on September 30, 2024, shows that the program’s construction costs could exceed initial estimates by up to six times, with delays threatening the delivery of the first submarine by up to 16 months.
The Columbia-class submarine program has been plagued by rising costs and ongoing delays since its inception. The lead submarine is now expected to be delivered between October 2028 and February 2029. The GAO warned that this delay could jeopardize the submarine’s availability for operations in 2030, a deadline for maintaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
“Our independent analysis calculated likely cost overruns that are more than six times higher than the prime contractor’s estimates and almost five times more than the Navy’s,” the GAO stated in its report.
General Dynamics Electric Boat, the program’s prime contractor, has been criticized for overly optimistic cost estimates that rely on performance improvements GAO says are unlikely to materialize The report criticized both the Navy and the contractor for failing to resolve long standing issues such as late materials and incomplete design products.
The audit highlighted that the lead submarine’s construction could cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than planned.
The report also points out the Navy’s failure to properly track the impact of its investments in the submarine supplier base. Since 2018, the Navy has disbursed more than $2.6 bn to support the development of the Columbia-class program. However, the audit found that the Navy has not consistently defined how to measure whether these investments are generating the desired results.
The number of U.S. companies producing submarine components has dwindled from 17,000 during the Cold War to just 3,500 today, putting added strain on the Columbia-class program. The Navy and shipbuilders have been providing “supplier development funding” to maintain critical production lines, but the GAO found that the Navy has not ensured that these funds are being used effectively.
The GAO issued five recommendations to address the program’s challenges, including directing the Navy to require the shipbuilder to revise its cost estimates and improve its reporting on construction progress. The Navy agreed with the recommendations and pledged to implement corrective actions.
The Columbia-class program is the Navy’s highest acquisition priority, with nearly $130bn earmarked for the construction of 12 submarines. Despite the program’s strategic importance, the ongoing delays and cost overruns have raised concerns about its long-term viability and the Navy’s ability to maintain its sea-based nuclear deterrent.
(Source: https://www.sofx.com/)
02 Oct 24. DOD Launches Defense Security Cooperation Service to Further Bolster U.S. Advantage Through Partnerships. The United States’ network of military partnerships around the globe is key to maintaining its advantage over strategic competitors, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said today.
Hicks spoke during a ceremony at the Pentagon to mark the establishment of the Defense Security Cooperation Service. This new component of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency was stood up to provide the Defense Department with comprehensive oversight and management of the security cooperation workforce.
“There is no single foreign counterpart engagement that any senior DOD official does where the work of this community is not front and center,” Hicks said of the security cooperation workforce.
“I know the work is hard, but the payoff is huge,” she said. “Because of you, wherever U.S. forces operate, they do so alongside the world’s best trained, best equipped and most capable allied and partner militaries, from Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific.”
Those partnerships, Hick said, are a “major asymmetric advantage that we have, compared to our strategic competitors” gained through decades of defense security cooperation initiatives with an expanding network of partners.
Since 1950, she noted, the defense security cooperation enterprise has spearheaded foreign military sales and other forms of assistance totaling over $1.2trn.
In recent years, the demand for security assistance from U.S. allies and partners has skyrocketed. The U.S. provided $50 bn in security assistance in fiscal year 2020. In fiscal year 2024, which ended yesterday, the U.S. provided more than $100 bn in security assistance.
But she cautioned that the U.S. cannot afford to take its partnerships for granted, and said the launch of the new service comes at a pivotal moment for security cooperation.
Hicks said the increase in demand for U.S. security cooperation is a direct response to a rise in aggression throughout the globe.
“Nations of goodwill want to deter such aggression however they can, and effectively defend against it if they must,” she said. “And nations all around the world, and notably across the Global South, want to promote a rules-based international order, protect their coasts, and respond to humanitarian disasters. So, countries come to us for partnership. And every day, you make it possible for America to provide that.”
She said going forward, the U.S. cannot accept the status quo as it confronts a “generational era of strategic competition.”
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III directed the department to carry out a series of actions last June aimed at improving the effectiveness of the U.S. foreign military sales process and other security cooperation efforts in order to remain competitive.
The creation of the DSCS is the result of a rigorous review co-led by the DOD acquisition and sustainment and policy officials in response to Austin’s directive. Congress codified the creation of the new service in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act.
The new service consolidates the infrastructure supporting DOD’s security cooperation workforce into a single organization designed to ensure appropriate allocation of personnel resources to meet global demand.
It will provide the department with comprehensive oversight, management and analysis of security cooperation workforce staffing levels and assignments throughout the globe while maintaining operational control of highly trained security cooperation specialists at the combatant command level.
Hicks said the new service is among the most consequential actions following Austin’s directive, noting the importance of a cohesive workforce that is well trained and well resourced in driving long-term change.
“Today is the start of a new chapter for the security cooperation enterprise, one that all of you will write together over the next 12 months, and the years that will follow,” Hicks said.
“The opportunities to succeed will be endless, just like the demands on your time and resources,” she said. “Because the ability of our allies and partners to win future wars will be shaped by what our security cooperation community does today to deliver for their warfighters tomorrow.” (Source: U.S. DoD)
01 Oct 24. House leaders urge White House to share more tech with Australia, UK. The chairs of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees are pushing the Biden administration to share more defense equipment with Australia and the United Kingdom — America’s two partners in the AUKUS agreement.
In a letter sent to the White House on Tuesday, first reported by Defense News, the two Republican lawmakers argued that the “excluded technologies list” governing what the U.S. can export to either country is still too long. The restrictions, they said, will hinder America’s ability to develop key capabilities to compete with its main rival, China.
“We urge you and your senior leaders to continue to review items included on the ETL and remove as many as possible that do not warrant inclusion in order to unleash AUKUS’ full potential,” wrote Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and Foreign Affairs Chairman Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas.
The new rules will make it easier for the U.S., U.K. and Australia to share vast amounts of defense equipment.
Under AUKUS, the United States is helping Australia build nuclear-powered submarines, a system so sensitive America had previously only shared it with the U.K. Under the second part of the deal, the three countries are also developing advanced technology, from hypersonic missiles to quantum computing.
One of the main barriers to this effort is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, a strict set of rules on what weaponry the U.S. exports. The administration loosened these rules for the U.K. and Australia in August, freeing up either country to access 80% of American defense exports without first applying for a license.
What the two lawmakers are now concerned about is the remaining 20%, given how long it can take to get one of those licenses. The U.S. State Department can take more than a month to vet requests, and the application often requires longer prep work beforehand.
“We should move to allow as much sharing of technology as possible,” Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said in testimony before Congress in September. “We have more work to be done on this.”
The U.S. State Department’s updated rule is still under review, allowing public comment until mid-November. Before the hearing, Campbell gave McCaul a “personal commitment” to shepherd this process through its deadline, said a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Republican staff.
The staffer said that the size of the excluded technologies list also depends on how it’s measured: It may be 20% by dollar amount, but it’s 30% by the number of total U.S. licenses.
This list includes weapons and technology restricted by law — such as biological weapons or cluster bombs. But it also includes others only restricted by U.S. policy, such as precision missiles. British and Australian officials often chafe at these delays, since the State Department almost always approves their requests in the end.
Even more, the staff member argued, some of the technology that would be most important to AUKUS is still on that list — adding delays when the U.S. and its allies should be moving faster.
“The Australians have done a full-court press to the Hill, but they’ve also been very vocal to the administration” about loosening the rules, the aide said. Of particular concern to Canberra, the aide continued, are precision weapons, undersea drones and maritime acoustic technology.
The Australian embassy wouldn’t confirm whether those capabilities are of special interest. In a statement, a spokesperson for the embassy said that the government “welcome[ed] continued bipartisan congressional interest in removing barriers to create a seamless trilateral defense industrial base.”
The U.S. State Department could not immediately provide comment.
“We need to make sure we achieve the full potential of the exemption and reap the opportunities it provides for faster, more efficient collaboration between AUKUS partners. Ensuring the scope of the Excluded Technologies list is minimized, where appropriate, and that the regulation itself fully supports our collaboration, will be key to achieving this,” a British official wrote in a statement.
The top U.S., U.K. and Australian defense officials met in London last week to mark AUKUS’ third anniversary and announced the winners of a challenge meant to jumpstart the agreement’s work on advanced technology.
“When the final AUKUS rule is announced in November, we expect to see significant changes,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. (Source: glstrade.com/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
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————