US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jura said:

Jul 26, 2018
gosh inside
How much will the Space Force cost, and what’s it going to look like?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
No cost estimates yet, but we have these logos.

Click to expand...

I think it’s fair to say that $13 billion is a fairly eye-popping number.

First, let’s address the leaked U.S. Air Force estimate that creating a Space Force as a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

over the first five years. The Air Force has an interest in the release of the cost estimate for establishing a Space Force; as some experts have claimed, the service would likely bear the brunt of the costs, and probably wants to get ahead of it now rather than later.

It is also interesting the leak happened at the same time that Secretary Heather Wilson pitched her

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from 312 to 386 — a change that would also cost a good amount.

The cynic in me would guess that releasing these two bits of information at once could be a subtle attempt to get Congress to consider a budget boost for the service. Or perhaps Secretary Wilson is not as behind Space Force as she claimed to be at the Defense News Conference, and hopes the estimate will cause Congress to pull the brakes.

Hard to say.

Regardless of the motivation behind the leak or even whether the number is a fair estimate, we’re now seeing a more practical dialogue about

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

So do we?

Let’s recall how the concept was first floated. In March, speaking at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, President Donald Trump shared a story about how he recently thought to himself: “Maybe we need a new force” to support all the work happening in space.

“I was not really serious,” he said. “Then I said: ‘What a great idea. Maybe we’ll have to do that. That could happen.’ ”

This was not a solution to a problem per se. This was, as Trump clearly stated, recognition that space is a war-fighting domain. And at its core, the proposal for a Space Corps is a reorganization. It’s taking capabilities distributed across different offices and agencies, mainly within the Air Force, and putting them under a single umbrella, with its own leadership structure.

The question then becomes whether such a reorganization is worth $13 billion. Or even considerably less for that matter.

Consider when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. Obviously, as a stand-alone, Cabinet-level department, the establishment of DHS was a far bigger undertaking than another branch of service. But it too was a reorganization at its core — created through the integration of all or part of 22 different federal departments and agencies.

But here’s the difference: With DHS there was clearly a problem to solve. The attacks on 9/11 demonstrated quite painfully that the United States lacked the ability or the inclination to effectively share intelligence. Counterterrorism efforts were not coordinated. And those factors combined were creating an undeniable risk.

Again, and in contrast, a Space Force does not offer a solution to a particular problem. Yes, more attention needs to be paid to space as a domain of warfare. Investments need to happen to better respond to and defend against space-based threats, and to harness the opportunities that space presents for our own warfare capabilities.

But there has been little indication that any agency involved in space is functioning in a vacuum. For that matter, space responsibilities are already pretty centralized. And there isn’t any indication that pulling all space resources under a single “separate but equal” umbrella will suddenly improve or dramatically enhance how the Department of Defense addresses the space domain.

More focus and attention is needed. But could that not be achieved by way of a new combatant command for space, as established under the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act?

Really, what difference does it make, aside from an added layer of bureaucracy?

Of course, we don’t know what we don’t know. Until the actual proposal comes to fruition, likely in early 2019, we can only assume what a Space Force would look like.

But in the words of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., “I don’t know what you get for $13 billion.”

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Mar 10, 2017
and
Contract award for US Air Force’s Huey replacement helicopter at risk of delay until FY20

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

has picked Boeing Co. to build the replacement for its

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

helicopter at a cost of approximately $2.38 billion, the service announced Monday.

The award stipulates approximately $375 million for the first four MH-139 helicopters, manufactured in partnership with Leonardo-Finmeccanica, and includes equipment integration.

The firm-fixed-price contract will save taxpayers roughly $1 billion, the Air Force's top civilian said.

"Strong competition drove down costs for the program, resulting in $1.7 billion in savings to the taxpayer," Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said in a statement.

The program provides "for the acquisition and sustainment of up to 84 MH-139 helicopters," as well as training, maintenance and support equipment, the Defense Department said in a release.

The first operational helicopters are expected to be delivered in fiscal 2021, according to the Air Force.

"A safe, secure and effective nuclear enterprise is job one," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said Monday. "It is imperative that we field a capable and effective helicopter to replace UH-1Ns, providing security for our ICBMs and nuclear deterrence operations."

Boeing beat out the Lockheed Martin-owned Sikorsky, which

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for the replacement, and Sierra Nevada Corp., which

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

"We're grateful for the Air Force's confidence in our MH-139 team," said David Koopersmith, vice president and general manager of Boeing Vertical Lift, in a release. "The MH-139 exceeds mission requirements. It's also ideal for VIP transport, and it offers the Air Force up to $1 billion in acquisition and lifecycle cost savings."

The helicopters will be manufactured in Pennsylvania.

"With the [Leonardo] AW139 platform's more than 2 million flight hours and established supply chain, we look forward to applying our expertise to drive cost savings while supporting mission readiness," added Ed Dolanski, president of U.S. Government Services at Boeing Global Services.

Last month, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, which uses the aging Huey helicopter for aerial protection of its missile sites, said a new helicopter is not only a necessity but long overdue.

"We are going to get a new helicopter in the missile fields," Gen. John Hyten said Aug. 1 during his opening remarks at the 2018 STRATCOM Deterrence Symposium in Omaha, Nebraska.

"We are going to get a new helicopter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"

The replacement program has been in the works for more than a decade.

"It is taking way too long," Hyten said during his speech.

The service moved forward with the Huey replacement effort in April 2017 when it released a new draft request for proposal to "continue dialogue with industry to ensure final RFP release this summer and contract award in FY18," officials said at the time.

As part of the $1 trillion 2017 omnibus spending bill, lawmakers allotted $75 million toward the program, bumping the two-year budget total to $93.3 million, according to budget documents. The 2016 request asked for only $18 million.

The process was soon tied up in a pre-award protest, however, when Sikorsky, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp., filed a pre-emptive opposition

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

involving technical data rights, which it would have to turn over to the Defense Department if the company's helicopter, the HH-60U, won the competition,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The Government Accountability Office dismissed Lockheed's suit in May.

The UH-1Ns -- some of which entered the Air Force's inventory in 1970 -- will continue to support five commands and numerous missions, including operational support airlift, test support, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile security support until the replacements are ready.

The announcement marks the second major contract award for Boeing in recent weeks. The U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

selected the U.S.'s largest aerospace firm to build its first operational carrier-based MQ-25 tanker drone.

Click to expand...

1. Nuclear security, they will be used to rapid deploy security teams in and around USAF missile installations in the event of suspected intruders
2. VVIP taxi, everyone knows about the USMC HMX1 who fly helicopters and now Osprey transporting dignitaries and heads of State around DC and beyond but few know that all 4 US Services do similar duties, although the President of the United States only flys by the Marines other lawmakers get rides in USAF choppers as part of 1st Helicopter Squadron.
3. Search and Rescue, states side S&R operations.
4. Training. Pretty self explanatory but for use to train helicopter pilots who will do all of the above as well as move to HH60W

Jura said:

since I've now read it, I post
Why 386 Squadrons? Air Force Says It’ll Have the Data Next Year

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Last week Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson announced “the Air Force we need”, a significant expansion of the Air Force from 312 operational squadrons to 386. The specific rationale for the size of the increase, how it would be accomplished, and what it would cost were not clear. One thing is clear. It will be really expensive. The annual additional cost would be about $37 billion at a time when budget projections show no increase, and up to 94,000 additional personnel, active and reserve.

The chart below shows the Air Force proposal,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. A few quick observations. Much of the growth is in enabling capabilities like tankers, special forces, space, and especially command-and-control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), which provide the precision targeting that long-range munitions require. There is very little growth in RPV/UAVs, which, unless something big is happening in the black world, indicates a renewed emphasis on manned aircraft.

Why is the expansion needed? Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force Chief of Staff, said it’s being driven by the National Defense Strategy: “to defeat a peer threat while being able to deter a near-peer threat … and simultaneously being able to maintain campaign momentum against violent extremism… at a moderate level of risk”. The Air Force says the additional forces are needed primarily for a high-end conflict with China or Russia. The high possibility of severe attrition in battle could be driving the move. The Air Force would need to replace those losses. In previous statements, the Air Force also noted how stretched it was meeting day-to-day requirements for on-going conflicts, crisis response, and allied engagement, so it would not be surprising if that also provided some of the rationale.

How would these reserves be created — buying new planes or using legacy aircraft? Goldfein noted that the Air Force analysis “was a squadron look, not a platform look,” so the Air Force did not specify any numbers for the aircraft required or whether the expansion was, in fact, executable.

Nevertheless, using current Air Force inventory and squadron numbers, it is possible to calculate, at least roughly, the number of aircraft that would be required to implement the proposed expansion. That calculation shows that the Air Force would require a total of about 940 more aircraft to fill the operational units as well as the associated training, maintenance, and test requirements.

One way to acquire these additional aircraft would be to buy new. However, this is not likely to be possible in the numbers needed along the timelines desired. In the fiscal 2019 president’s budget, for example, the Air Force proposed to procure 100 aircraft of all kinds. It would need to double this production rate to accomplish the expansion by 2028. Without doubling production, the Air Force will need to keep legacy aircraft in the structure longer while it adds new aircraft, perhaps procured at a higher rate to get the expansion needed. It would also need to include the National Guard and Reserve in the expansion, as it likely intends to do.

The Cost

Several years ago, CSIS developed a Force Cost Calculator that takes 120 inputs for force structure, readiness, investment, infrastructure and overhead and calculates the total budget. In making the calculation for forces, it includes all of the direct training and maintenance, as well as indirect support from other units and institutional overhead support. Last summer the team updated the factors for the FY 2018 budget.

Running the Air Force proposal through the Force Cost Calculator indicates an additional cost — once the plan is fully underway — of approximately $37 billion on top of the current $156 billion Air Force budget (excluding funding for the Intelligence Community).

The expansion would require 33,000 additional active duty airmen just for the operational units. Why such a large increase (30 percent) if the force goal only increases by 25 percent? Because the plan proposes large increases to bomber, ISR, and special operations aircraft, which require relatively large numbers of personnel to operate. If support units (like wing headquarters, maintenance, engineer, military police, weather, etc) expanded proportionately to the operational personnel and infrastructure increases, but at a slower rate, the total increase would be 77,000 in the active force. The Guard and Reserve would need 17,000 to fly and support their share of the increase. That total increase would be 94,000.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is WAY too low, an 8 percent increase in personnel for a 25 percent increase in operational squadrons. It likely includes only operational personnel, that is, personnel in the squadrons themselves without support.

Recruiting and retaining these large numbers would be challenging, even for the Air Force, which traditionally has had the easiest time in this area. Most challenging, however, would be acquiring the additional pilots. Of the 940 additional aircraft needed, about 850 would be in flying units (operational, training, test). That would require another 2,500 pilots or so. But the Air Force is already 2,000 pilots short, so the Air Force would face the prospect of aircraft without pilots. To be fair, the Air Force would have a decade to fix this problem and is working hard to narrow the gap, but such a large expansion would greatly raise the bar.

Optimism, Hallucination or Negotiating Tactic?

The budget skies ahead are stormy. DoD’s budget projections are flat in constant dollar terms. That means that any new initiatives must be offset by cuts elsewhere. Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has said that the department will find management efficiencies but, beyond some information-technology consolidations, none have yet been reported.

The Air Force could try to grab budget share from other services, but they have their own needs and will hang on to their funding tightly. The Navy aims to expand to 355 ships, and they have the advantage of having presidential support for that expansion, something the Air Force now lacks.

It’s not clear that the Air Force will even get the funding it currently assumes. The makeup of the Congress may change in the midterm elections in November, and the Democratic Party has been moving to the left. Recently,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

: “I think the [$716 billion fiscal year 2019 defense topline] is too high, and it’s certainly not going to be there in the future.” That’s a change from the bipartisan support of defense increases that have been evident in the last few years.

Of course, none of this may be relevant. The expansion goal may just be the Air Force’s way of expressing its true needs and strengthening its position for the inevitable strategy and budget controversies ahead. It may not represent a “plan” at all, but a negotiating position to counter the Navy’s 355 ship goal. (Note to Army: what’s your goal?).

So, “the Air Force we need” enters the DoD planning process for fiscal 2020. The 2020 budget, published next February, will show what, if anything, emerges from that process. The plan’s details will be revealed in the spring, and with them, we’ll have something specific to analyze. Stay tuned.

Click to expand...

The U.S. Air Force’s proposal to increase in size by nearly 25% is being greeted with a mix of admiration and skepticism, as it sets the stage for future budget debates.

“The Air Force is too small for what the nation expects of us,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said at the annual Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, Sept. 17.

The analysis leading the Air Force to seek 386 squadrons, up from 312, is driven by the 2018 National Defense Strategy, says Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein. The strategy calls on the Air Force to defend the homeland, provide a safe and effective nuclear deterrent, meet a peer threat and deter a near-peer threat while maintaining campaign momentum against global extremism. All these objectives would have to be met while assuming a moderate risk, based on intelligence assessments of the future threat, he says.

While thorough, analysis driving the increase to forces not seen since the Cold War is not complete, Wilson notes. “There are 5-6 more studies due by next March,” she says, stressing that Air Force leadership is not naive about the affordability challenges this plan will face. “We’re engaged in a conversation right now. We haven’t laid out a complete program plan.”

The details are scant. The official breakdown would grow the force by a number of new squadrons (see graph). To equip a force of 386 squadrons, the Air Force will need 182 fighters, 60 bombers, 210 tankers and 15 airlifters over the next decade, according to John Venable, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Other estimates vary. Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners, for instance, projects the force would add 210 fighters, 140 tankers and 50 bombers, resulting in requests of more than $5 billion annually.

The plan is in line with what the Heritage Foundation has advocated to meet the high-end technological threats coming from China and Russia. “I think this is a great and bold move on her part. And we ought to stand behind her,” Venable says, referring to Wilson.

But that increase is viewed by Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, as a well-reasoned but lofty goal. “It’s a vision, an aspiration,” he says. “It is probably a place we don’t need to get to.”

The changes would require 40,000 additional personnel. “That’s a big increase,” says Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Growing the force is going to compete directly with modernizing the force.”

The service’s plans for increasing purchases of the B-21 bomber,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

tanker and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

all hit in the middle of the next decade, at the same time costs also take off for the new T-X trainer and Ground-based Strategic Deterrent—the ICBM to replace the Minuteman III.

In the short term, the Pentagon will face difficulty achieving the budget growth it is counting on, Harrison says. Next year, 2011 Budget Control Act caps return, and the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

will be looking for an additional $84 billion in fiscal 2020 and $87 billion for fiscal 2021 above those caps. Regardless of election-year political changes, bipartisan talk of deficit reduction could make that request challenging.

“I just think that’s going to be an incredible increase of funding required in the 2020s,” Harrison says. “It would behoove the Air Force to come up with a good analysis of what this is going to cost and what kind of tradeoffs they can make in their own budget to pay for this.” He suggests combing accounts for excess basing or health care.

Venable indicates there is room to shift money to people and equipment—including targeting growth from fiscal 2017-19 in research and development. He estimates that grew by $10 billion over two years and that $80 billion could be shifted over a decade, assuming the budget remains stable or grows.

On Capitol Hill, where the Air Force’s plan will flourish or die, more details will be required—and soon. “It’s all backwards. How do you know how many squadrons you need if you don’t know how many or what type of aircraft you need?” says a Senate Armed Services Committee aide. “They are going to tie themselves in knots trying to explain this. Without the force structure behind it, it means nothing. [It is] a real lost opportunity for the Air Force.”

Click to expand...

The U.S. Air Force’s top leader is hopeful that Boeing will be able to keep the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on pace despite the company’s record with schedule delays on the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

“The intention there is to work with Boeing. We don’t think this is a complicated procurement,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Sept. 26. “The first part

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and some of the things that they are going to have to do to modify the aircraft. We’ll move through that and then we expect to buy four of them.”

Wilson spoke to reporters at the National Press Club just days after the Air Force gave a contract to a Boeing-Leonardo team for the Huey replacement, and ahead of the T-X contract award that is speculated to be announced this week.

A Boeing-Leonardo team won the UH-1N replacement contract Monday — a $375 million initial payment to build the first four MH-139s with follow-on awards potentially worth up to $2.38 billion. Boeing and Leonardo are individually competing for the T-X trainer contract, as is Lockheed Martin.

Wilson touted the Huey replacement effort as an example of the benefits of industrial competition, saying the Air Force saved $1.7 billion on the program by having multiple vendors bid on a fixed-price contract set up so contractors are responsible for cost overruns.

The Air Force had initially considered sole-sourcing UH-60 Black Hawks from Lockheed Martin subsidiary Sikorsky when the program began, but former service leaders believed it was legally obligated to pursue a competition and chose to open up the process in 2016.

“As it turns out, I think that really was the right decision,” Wilson said. “It wasn't a decision I made — it was my predecessor — but because of that competition, Boeing won the competition at a significantly lower price point, so I think the taxpayer is going to get a good deal out of that and the Air Force will get a replacement for the aging Hueys for both the missile fields and other areas."

At face value, the KC-46 and Huey-replacement programs share some similarities: Boeing won both contests by offering a militarized version of a commercial aircraft and by undercutting the competition after bidding aggressively low on a fixed-price contract. Analysts have speculated that if Boeing wants to win T-X with its clean-sheet design, it will have to take the same assertive approach in terms of price.

During her remarks, Wilson avoided connecting lines among the KC-46 program, the Huey replacement and the T-X competition, even when asked if the difficulties on the tanker program had led to lessons learned.

Instead, she repeated that, despite the KC-46’s ongoing technical issues, the Air Force and Boeing continue to work toward getting the first KC-46 ready for delivery in October.

“We’re still getting the test reports in and making sure that any deficiencies are taken care of, or that Boeing commits to take care of them at Boeing’s expense, even when we do operational test and evaluation,” she said. “But we’re driving through those. This is why we do testing: to make sure that it works and that all the kinks are worked out of the aircraft. And when it’s ready, we’ll accept it."

Click to expand...