SysAdmin, Author at Second Line of Defense

Business Model # 1: Team CW

Posted on September 7, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

09/07/2010

At the Farnborough Air Show, MBDA held a media briefing providing an update on the Team Complex Weapons initiative (“Team CW”) and the way ahead.

The business model is of interest, not only for shaping a key ally’s approach to shaping future capability but in terms of being a potential harbinger for how MODs will handle efforts to maintain capabilities in the face of fiscal stringencies.

Lord Drayson in his formulation of the defense industrial strategy forged a number of initiatives, one of which was Team CW. The idea was to bring MOD into closer partnership with its weapons providers and supply chain to shape evolving capabilities in the industry with an eye to enhanced efficiencies but at the same time ensuring UK operational sovereignty in this key area of future military capability.

The baseline agreement was signed in June 2006 between MBDA, QinetiQ, Roxel and Thales UK as well as other members of the weapons supply chain to work with MOD in shaping development of future weapons. The idea has been to share risk, guide investment and clarify early for MOD what procurement choices are optimal for its point of view.

At the heart of the concept is to try to bridge the gap between industry and MOD in reducing risk and enhancing effective procurement. Obviously there are a number of challenges ranging for Intellectual Property ownership, investment sharing between government and diversity of private sector competitors to the question of the relationship between Team CW, MOD and the companies, such as Raytheon who are outside of the arrangement.

FireShadow, a product of the Team CW Process (Credit Photo: MBDA)

A next phase in the evolution of the Team CW arrangement was reached in March 2010 whereby MOD “commenced implementation of the CW sector strategy by signing a partnering agreement with the first of the Team CW prime contractors, MBDA UK. This agreement is know as the Interim Portfolio Management Agreement (PMA-1). Under the agreement, the Ministry of Defence and MBDA UK signed a Through Life Enabling Contract (TLEC) with its first package of work worth £330M for the development and manufacture of two of the six Team CW launch projects and to conduct further assessment work on two projects.” [1]

One of the work packages is for SPEAR Block 2 Capability, which builds on the Brimstone Urgent Operational Requirement to provide “fast jets with a very precise and discrete ground attack capability whilst the Fireshadow program will provide a new Loitering Munition capability.” [2]

The MOD release goes on to add “the Portfolio Management Agreement establishes a joint governance and management structure in order to deliver the future needs of the CW sector. This joint governance will manage the delivery the portfolio of projects to challenging Performance, Cost and Time parameters including effective risk, opportunity and incentivization management approaches.” [3]

And a further aspect underscored was “one of the key elements of the Agreement is an ability to flex the output of the contract to reflect the changing needs of UK forces. This approach has been developed through assessment phase and places the agreement in good position to respond to future shifts in requirements.” [4]

In a separate release (Team Complex Weapons [Team CW] Key Facts, July 2010), the approach was characterized as being based on the “delivery of three high level requirements: improved, affordable and swiftly adaptable military capability, operational sovereignty of UK weapons, greater efficiency and improved value for money.” The document went on to emphasize that “the development of a number of families of weapons” will be highlight “which will benefit from the use of modular technologies across the range, underpinned by a stable pipeline of funding managed at sector and portfolio level. On this basis the approach will provide stability to the sector in return for greater flexibility to the MOD and sustain indigenous UK industrial skills and capabilities required for operational sovereignty.” [5]

SPEAR, an additional Team CW Effort (Credit Illustration: MBDA)

At the media briefing by MBDA, an update on the business model was provided. When asked the benefits to MOD of such a model, one of the MBDA briefers underscored that “MOD and industry were provide a much better insight into the weapons we are buying, why we are buying them, whether we need them and generally brings into sharper focus the platforms on which we will deploy them.”

The briefers were asked whether they thought the Team CW approach might be the harbinger of other such arrangements in the face of growing financial pressure. The response was to suggest that this might be the case or as it was put by the briefer, “Team CW is a significant enabler to deal with these (stringent financial) circumstances.’”

Quite obviously one of the tensions is between the creation of a teaming arrangement which shapes an MOD-Industrial front end which reduces competition and the need to remain open to benefiting from global sourcing in providing best value to provide the materials and subsystems for Team CW. As the briefers discussed the problem, they suggested that the challenge is precisely where the crossover point lies between Teaming collaboration and competitive supply chains. As one briefer commented, “It is clear that access to the global supply chain is crucial, but it is difficult to work that out at the top levels if operational sovereignty is the core goal.”

In a recent RUSI overview on Team CW, MBDA’s Steve Wadley emphasized that

Since the formation of TEAM CW, MoD and MBDA, together with the other Team CW members, have worked hard to improve the ways they work together. These changed behaviors include joint working at project and portfolio level, and openness and transparency on all issues… Aligned objectives, joint incentivization and joint technical and progress reviews between the DE&S and Industry teams have create a much more constructive, trusting and supportive problem-solving environment.

And at a Raytheon press briefing at the Farnbough Air Show, Dr. Taylor Lawrence, President of Raytheon Missile Systems raised “concerns about the industrial policy of the UK, [which is] preferentially treating one of our competitors, MBDA, for [the] CW [program].”

As the West faces the challenge of shaping common missile defense capabilities a key question to resolve will be the relationship between approaches such as Team Complex and the American firms which will shape future US missile defense capability. In a constrained financial environment, how to shape effective teaming arrangements which are open to tapping effectively and efficiently global capabilities?

———

[1] to [5] All quotes have been taken from “UK MOD-MBDA Bilateral Agreement: Key Facts” (July 2010).

———-

***Posted on September 7th, 2010

The T/R Module Production Base for the F35 Lightning II’s Radar

Posted on September 7, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

An Interview With Douglas Lawton, vice president, Baltimore Manufacturing, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems

In early July, Second Line of Defense talked with Douglas Lawton, a conversation prompted by an SLD visit to the Northrop Grumman plant to watch the transmit and receive (or T/R) module production line : this line is central to the manufacturing process of multiple Northrop Grumman radar products, including the AN/APG-81 fighter radar for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. The T/R module is a key element of the manufacturing process to support the upsurge in production of the F-35. The T/R module part of the aircraft is based on multiple years of manufacturing experience, so it’s a fairly low risk proposition to build a radar capability for the aircraft from this T/R module production line. It’s not simply a Research & Development project; rather is it is based multiple years of actual manufacturing.

[slidepress gallery=’the-tr-module-production-base’]

The above slides, provided by Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems and accompanying this story, show three aspects of the story:

The first photo shows the family of common AESA technologies from which the F-35 radar derives its heritage and, in turn, contributes to the further evolution of the common family of capabilities.
The second photo shows the APG-81 AESA radar for the F-35.
The third photo shows a high school as seen from the air via the radar.

***

SLD: One of the things that I was struck by when visiting the plant and viewing the actual manufacturing of these modules was how you actually approached R&D in the manufacturing of the modules. That is to say, there was a very close relationship between how you’re manufacturing the chips and, for any changes you want to make in the capability of those chips, the decisions are being made with regard to manufacturability. The changes aren’t just on a briefing slide or an abstract concept. You’re going from enhanced capability to “How can I manufacture that enhanced capability.” That seems to be an important centerpiece of what I saw in the factory.

Lawton: Our approach to producing T/R modules is something that continually evolves. For example, we’ve just gone through an exercise on the F-35 T/R modules to re-shape the requirements and test screenings at the chip level, to improve both the chip yields and to further optimize the yields at the T/R module level, so the requirements of the chip and T/R module are very much in synch, optimizing performance and cost. The process of building, testing, learning and further improving is an integral element of the innovation and evolution of our T/R module products.

SLD: The conventional wisdom in looking at R&D tends to look at a scientific effort that goes to prototypes and then you address manufacturing. In actual fact in this particular case, the prototype is already part of the manufacturing process. It’s really a different way to look at what you’re doing. Is that correct?

Lawton: That is correct. We really do have a unique ability to produce high-quality, technically discriminating T/R modules in both high quantities and in prototype development quantities. Our T/R module manufacturing processes are foundational processes where each T/R built is leveraging past programs, using the same manufacturing technologies, operators and processes, just expanding the envelope from program-to-program.

Building T/R modules is relatively low risk once you get past that initial development start-up, which is ascertaining: What do I have from a chip performance standpoint? What do I have from a T/R module performance standpoint? Once you have that solidified, building them is really straightforward and low risk.

SLD: But this is a core competence that NGES keeps for itself. The company’s intent on keeping this as a core competence that allows it to address building new radars.

Lawton: Exactly. I mean when you look at where we’re investing our money in Manufacturing, the manufacturing and test of T/R modules is one of our primary investments.

SLD: So, in terms of IRAD?

Lawton: In terms of both process development/optimization and capitalization. It’s absolutely a core competency for Electronic Systems.

Our investment strategy gets back to understanding what your discriminators are and investing in those discriminators to the point where, when you do outsource some elements, it allows you to be the smart buyer.

There is an article in the July-August 2009 edition of the Harvard Business Review that is titled “Restoring American Competitiveness.” The premise of the article is that decades of destructive outsourcing of manufacturing has left the U.S. industry without the capability to invent the next-generation of high-technology products.

Understanding and investing in your discriminating capabilities facilitates future innovation and organizational growth.

SLD: Presumably, the fact that you’re making these chips and they get assembled into T/R modules and ultimately into radars allows you to provide a broad spectrum of capability and solutions, depending on what the platform itself is capable of supporting. You’re building across a spectrum of platforms and can support whatever way customers want to go with radars for their platforms.

Lawton: That’s exactly my point. For example, comparing a large ship-based antenna to one of our smaller UAV-based AESA antennas tells a very compelling story that says, “Our capabilities, our technologies are independent of platforms. You just tell us what the platform needs are, and we’ll leverage our legacy T/R module products to produce a T/R module that is commensurate with those needed capabilities.” We’ve purposely designed our AESA products to be scalable and modular in order to leverage our existing manufacturing investment and prior learning. The bottom line is it’s the same technologies, the same processes, the same equipment, and the same factory; no matter what the platform might be.

Lieutenant-General Deptula on the Evolution of Airpower

Posted on August 27, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

08/27/2010

Lt. General Deptula at his retirement speech (Credit Photo: SLD)

What follows are excerpts from Lieutenant- General Deptula’s retirement remarks delivered on August 6, 2010. Lt General Deptula provided two insightful interviews for our website, and provided solid understanding into a much neglected subject, the evolving relationship between manned and unmanned systems. Too often policymakers or analysts become platform centric on single operation focused. Lt. General Deptula never has suffered from such a problem, and his insights provide important inputs to shaping our thinking about the future of air power and of power projection. These remarks provide an important reminder about the dynamics of change affecting airpower and the challenges ahead.

Excerpts follow.

Lt. General Deptula at his retirement speech, August 6th, 2010 (Credit Photo: SLD)

Much has changed since I first donned this uniform and accepted the responsibilities of being an American Airman—and thinking, designing, teaching, and applying Air, Space, and Cyber power to accomplish our nation’s objectives…..

I’ve had the opportunity to learn from, and work with, a group of truly talented Airmen who honor me today with their presence….

All of you—and many others—had a hand in driving a dramatic and fundamental shift in the character of warfare over the last quarter of a century—a migration away from industrial age warfare, to an era of achieving precision effects based on rapid and wide dissemination of information.

An example of how much has changed is illustrated by the two aircraft framing the stage—the proven F-15 Eagle which I’ve flown for over 33 years, and the F-22A Raptor. What makes both these aircraft dominant in the context of their times is not only their speed, agility, weapons and signature—that which defines why we call them ‘fighters’—but rather their ability to gather, process, and rapidly share information.

In the case of the F-15, that information was a treasure trove that only went to the pilot—and we learned to share it only when technology advanced to where it would allow us to do that. In the case of the F-22—this is an aircraft that was designed from the start with the ability to collect, share, and rapidly act upon information…it’s more a flying sensor platform than its traditional designation that the term “fighter” conveys.

While it’s the most modern and capable combat aircraft in the world today, it’s a nascent indicator of how we’ll approach aircraft design in the future. Both declining resources and advancing technology are driving us to a future where every sensor is also equipped to be a shooter and every shooter also has integrated sensor capability.

We’re in an information age today and that’s what the ISR transformation that I’ve had the privilege and pleasure of leading for the last four years—along with my partners Paul Dettmer and most recently Jim Poss—is all about.

Knowledge is of no greater value today than in the past. However, what has changed is the ability of how data can be assimilated, synthesized and delivered in time to be useful. So we built an ISR enterprise with the intent to make the source of information transparent, the analysis good enough to become predictive, and the dissemination immediate.

At the same time, the evolution of technology and information is allowing us to seek a cultural change from the model of the past where operations and intelligence were segregated, to a day where the integration of operations and ISR is the norm. In the Desert Storm days of 1991 the friction between intel and the ops planners was palatable. Today I’m happy to say that’s no longer the case, but we must move toward even greater integration.

Still—airpower is about more than finding and sharing information—it’s about compressing time and space as well—about exploiting operations in the third dimension with a speed and agility that our adversaries simply can’t match.

Now, our sister services possess aircraft. Those aircraft make up the ‘air arms’ of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Those air arms are rightfully dedicated to facilitating the core functions of their parent service—operations on the ground, at sea, and in the littorals.

There is however, only one air force—it is not just another air arm, but rather a service specifically dedicated and structured to exploit the advantages of operating in the third dimension. It’s this unique and specific focus that keeps our Nation on the leading edge of the challenges we face…or in other words, makes aerospace power one of America’s asymmetric advantages.

Today, our joint forces have the highest battlefield survivability rates not only because of the advances in medicine—but also due to our ability to rapidly get our wounded to critical care facilities… by air.

Today, unlike the contests of the past—our joint forces go into combat with more information about the threat they face, and have better situational awareness provided in near real-time, and they get that information… from air and space, through cyberspace.

Today, unlike the past, our joint task forces are able to operate with much smaller numbers, across great distances and inhospitable terrain because they can be sustained over the long-haul… by air.

Today, navigation and precise location anywhere on the surface of the earth for application in both peace and war is provided by an Air Force GPS constellation… from space.

Today, not only do surface forces receive firepower from the air when they need it, but the adversaries our Nation views as the greatest threat to our security are being eliminated by direct attack… from the air.

Over the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, Airmen have created a structure of capabilities that have become ubiquitous…as a result, the Air Force has become an indispensible force…now that’s both a blessing… and a challenge.

We’ve made it look easy when it’s not, and as a result too many take what we do for granted… education and awareness are the solution…and our partners in the Air Force Association are helping to make that happen. For that we thank you.

Air, Space, and Cyber power are based on the characteristics of technology—but the invention, design, development, fielding and application of those instruments flow from human imagination, knowledge, and capabilities. American Airmen have harnessed technological capabilities to the ever-evolving requirements of national security by deterring potential adversaries; flying, fighting, and winning when necessary; by capitalizing on the virtues of air and space to project power without projecting vulnerability; and as a result, they provide our national leadership with strategic alternatives.

This is a proud heritage and a legacy that we must continue….

———-

***Posted on August 24^th, 2010

A Conversation with an F-35 Maintainer about the Impact of the New F-35 Actuator System on Maintenance

Posted on August 26, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

08/26/2010

An Interview with Armando Martinez

In an earlier article on the website, we discussed the impact of the design of the F-35 on maintenance.

One system, which was discussed in the article, was the new approach to building and maintaining hydraulic systems. The article discussed the impact of the EHAS or the electrohydrostatic actuation system. According to Bob Fiorentini, who was interviewed for the article, “The EHAS is a revolutionary step in the control of aircraft surfaces. Hydraulic systems for the F35 are not centralized. EHAS allows each unit on the surface to control itself.” Fiorentini added that this “significantly reduces the risk of catastrophic failure. And the EHAS systems reduces the amount of maintenance for the aircraft by eliminating a number of components in the airframe such as hydraulic tubing, hose lines goring through the airframe.”

In this interview, SLD followed up with a key player in shaping the maintenance approach, Armando Martinez. Martinez has many years of experience with the F-16 program before moving over to the F-35 program. When interviewed in late June he was involved with F-35B from the BF-2 through BF-4. He has just been assigned to the test program supporting the F35-C or CF-3, the aircraft that will be tested on the aircraft carrier.

According to his resume, Martinez has “Supervised the interior and exterior completion of Joint Strike Fighter F-35/Block 52 & 60 F-16 Aircraft to include sub-assemblies, avionics, mechanics, and aircraft production sites. Ensure customer, engineering, and FAA specifications and regulations are met on a daily basis.”

In this interview, the focus was on the testing program and on the impact of some of the new build items on the F-35, which affect the maintainability, and performance of the aircraft. A major focus of the interview is on the impact of the EHAS.

SLD: One issue, which was raised in our conversation with the Gunny Sgt. in charge of maintenance on the test aircraft at Pax River, is the cultural change from older aircraft to the F-35. Have you experienced that issue as well on your test flight line here in Fort Worth?

Martinez: Absolutely. I have worked on the BF-2 through BF-4, the STOVL aircraft. I’m telling you right now, it’s not a Harrier at all. You cannot even compare those two aircraft. You can’t compare nomenclature. The only thing you can probably say about the Harrier and the F-35, and I’m talking the STOVL, is that they’re aircraft. The only comparison you can make is they’re aircraft, and that’s it, and people got to draw this line that you cannot compare the Harrier to the F-35 at all. They are maintained completely differently, and because the F-35B is a new aircraft, with new approaches to maintenance, we are shaping new approaches to supporting the aircraft.

And you can ask the question in reverse. Let me take my crew and then try to go maintain a Harrier that we know nothing about. I’ve never worked a Harrier in my life, ever. So if they put me on a Harrier, I would not have a clue what to do with it.

(Credit Photo: Lockheed Martin) — (Credit: Lockheed Martin)

SLD: What are you seeing as you are dealing with the 35 that could be exciting possibilities of maintaining this aircraft?

Martinez: I’ll give you one main exciting development, as a maintainer is that you have self-sustained hydraulic systems. Do you know how difficult it is to change hydraulic lines? Now you’ve got less hydraulics to worry about, a lot less, and most aircraft leak all the time. Ours is going to be a lot easier to maintain.

If you’re comparing the hydraulics on the F-35 to the F-16, there’s a lot of tubing, a lot of hydraulic tubing on the aircraft, which is on the F-16, which is not on the F-35 So when you’re saying a lot of hydraulics… I would say there is roughly a 60% improvement on the F-35 on the hydraulic system, probably even more than that in terms of maintenance associated with hydraulics systems.

SLD: How has the hydraulic system been simplified on the F-35?

Martinez: They greatly simplified the hydraulic systems because everything is self-contained. You’ve got your own hydraulic systems. You got your own actuators.

If you were to compare the F-35 to the F-16, you probably reduced maintenance by 60%. When you have self-sustained systems, and when that system breaks, you just got to change that one component and you’re done, that’s it. Before you had to remove the lines, you got brake lines and now you just got an actuator you pull and you remove and you install a new one.

Credit: Lockheed Martin

SLD: And what is the impact of the improved capability?

Martinez: Let’s say the aircraft was in combat, in an air-to-air fight or whatever, before with older aircraft, you just spray the aircraft and if you shot one of the main hydraulic lines, the pilot is in big trouble. Now they got to actually focus on one actuator, which is not that big and to try to shoot at it. Your target just got way smaller.

SLD: What other impacts coming from having a new hydraulics system?

Martinez: If you’re talking about the old type hydraulics, like in the F-15 and the Harriers, they have many more hydraulic lines, big hydraulic lines, units, all pumping so much pressure all through the aircraft. You’re talking from one end the aircraft to another one and you only had so many systems to pump it in, so you’ve got hydraulic lines going from one side of the aircraft to the other and that takes up space. It takes up weight. It’s very hard to maintain. And just like anything, you got to get a very heavy object in the air, so guess what? You’re going to squeeze all these hydraulics as much as you like because you’re trying to make the aircraft smaller and not as heavy.

So when you start removing all those lines and everything, guess what? Now you got more room for fiber optics, wiring, more capability to the aircraft, and that’s exactly what the JSF is.

———-

***Posted on August 24^th, 2010

Elizabeth City USCG Base Infrastructure

Posted on August 25, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

08/25/2010

On our tour of the Elizabeth City USCG station there were several examples of the state of the infrastructure and of needs for modernization.

All photos are credit to Second Line of Defense, June 30, 2010.

A first example is how much stuff is kept outside because of the absence of permanent storage facilities. This is obviously a challenge in a hurricane sensitive area.

A second example is simply the condition of the warehouse. If one remembers that this warehouse is the “Fed Ex” support center for the entire USCG fleet one gets a since of perhaps a weak link in the system.

A third example combines concerns about the condition of the warehouse with the lack of permanent storage space necessitating placing significant material outside of the warehouse.

A fourth example is the general condition of the roads and parking lots on the facility. Given that the roads are essential to warehouse functioning, the condition of these roads is an important factor as well.

The fifth, sixth and seventh examples underscore the World War II character of the base. The fifth example shows the parking lot, which relies on continued use of USN sea ramps from World War II.

The sixth example shows the recreation area, which operates on the ruins of the World War II USN base, which is now the USCG station.

The seventh example is the gym for the base. We expect our USCG staffs to be fit; they exercise in a World War II base movie theater. The theater is seen from the front and then the director for the exercise facility shows the projection windows, which still exist in the building from World War II.

The good news is that some modernization is afoot. Thanks to Kevin Costner and his USCG movie, the rescue swimmers of the USCG received notoriety. A new training facility is being built to support their training.

———-

***Posted on August 24, 2010

The Challenge of Modernizing USCG Infrastructure: The Case of the Elizabeth City USCG Base

Posted on August 24, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

08/24/2010

An Interview with Captain Bennett

Earlier this summer Second Line of Defense interviewed Captain Bennett, base commander at the Elizabeth City Coast Guard Station. Captain Bennett discussed the challenges facing the facility with aging infrastructure impacting on operations and capabilities. Our website looks at concepts of operations and capabilities. Clearly one key aspect affecting both is the nature of the bases from which US and allied forces operate. Con-ops and capabilities are clearly intertwined with the physical assets available to the forces.

But while there has been much debate about the platforms the USCG is acquiring to replace its aging fleets of aircraft and ships, little attention has been focused in the public debate on the base of the pyramid, the basing infrastructure.

SLD: One of the things that people generally don’t understand is the role of infrastructure and how the state of that infrastructure affects the operational capability of the Coastguard. Give me a sense of how the kind of the condition of the infrastructure here on the base which is so central to the entire air capability of the USCG?

Captain Bennett: Essentially this is a World War II vintage base; it’s got a deep legacy here within the community in Elizabeth City. And it’s played a key role over the years since World War II. And really, any rescue that you see at sea or anything that the Coastguard’s doing out there on the high seas or picking up people locally in lakes, inland waterways, all that portion of the operations, you can reverse engineer from the operations to a base like Elizabeth City. For it is here where the folks go from to do the mission, where they’re trained, where they eat, where they sleep, and the equipment that they use and the training facility.

So you can connect all the dots and go back to where our person is trained and where the equipment’s maintained, and there’s a key linkage there; and if that foundation of support is not there, it’s hard to get those Coastguard men and women out there doing the mission with the right tools, the right training at the right time.

It’s something that the public at-large doesn’t see, but it’s very, very important to our Coastguard men and women.

SLD: One of the things that’s striking to me is that we rely on the Coastguard to surge to deal with a national crisis like in the Gulf oil spill. And we now have on this base, the complete support element for the entire air capability of the Coastguard. And yet, the warehouse which functions as the FedEx Memphis facility is in very old facilities that one certainly cannot call state of the art. How important would it be to get a more modern infrastructure to support the Coastguard Air Force?

Captain Bennett: Absolutely essential. As you stated, we have kind of a FedEx approach to aircraft maintenance. Elizabeth City maintains all the aircraft in the whole United States Coastguard. This is the hub where it all happens, all the spare parts, all major maintenance comes through here, Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

And currently our warehouse, which has a lot of these spare parts, is in need of great repair; we have a crumbling floor right now, which we’re buttressing up. This part of the country, we’re close to the Dismal Swamp, we have a lot of underground water. Actually, the warehouse is on top of kind of an underground river.

So the floor is sagging, so we’re looking forward to getting a new warehouse so we can adequately house all of the spare parts and get a state-of-the-art warehousing. Because if we have a failure here within Elizabeth City for the aircraft maintenance, it’ll affect the whole fleet throughout the Coastguard. We are a single point of failure. So that’s a huge infrastructure issue that we’re looking forward to working through.

But right now, we kind of a bridging strategy with a temporary fix on the floor, if you will.

SLD: Well, one way to look at the situation is that if we’ve had a public debate for a long time about the aging fleet, the aging aircraft, the various aging assets, and the challenge to retain coastguard personnel in difficult financial times.

But there’s absolutely no public visibility with regard to the state of the infrastructure and I would look at the infrastructure as the base of the pyramid for modernization and re-capitalization of the platforms for the USCG but there seems little traction for that view. Give me a sense of the nature of this kind of pyramid that’s crucial to the actual capability of the coastguard.

Captain Bennett: Currently on this base as I mentioned is the hub of aircraft maintenance for the whole Coastguard. One of the issues is that the base commanding officer that I deal with is just the actual roadways here on the base. Basically, again, we’re dealing with World War II roads.

SLD: Quite literally?

Captain Bennett: Yes, literally. We have a lot of traffic, we have almost 3,000 people coming in and out of the base every day, between the folks that work here and folks that come in for their ID cards or for their medical pharmacy or what have you, we have a small exchange here. And so we just have a tremendous use of our roadways.

But as we have our trucks and deliveries come in, there’s a lot of wear and tear on the roadways. In our construction projects, we typically, on the shore side, we focus on buildings or an air station hangar. And typically, we never get down to the level where literally you’re on the ground. But it’s a key issue, we have one main road here, it goes along the Pasquotank River. And it’s key that we maintain that, so currently my folks in facilities kind of patch up the potholes as they can, and keep things going.

I tell my staff, we’re kind of like electricity, until you don’t have it, you don’t care about it. The roadways, they just not something that gets a lot of visibility, and similarly, starting from the ground and then working up, we have a lot of other buildings that we can’t house all of our outdoor equipment; our trucks and some of our yellow equipment.

It’s all out in the weather right now; we’d like more garages for those. So all of those things that are behind the scenes that are very important to any municipality to run the town or a base well, which is really what this base is, it’s a small city and I call myself the mayor. We are focused on keeping the utilities operating such as the electricity, the water, the roadways and all those things that are behind the scenes; they’re behind all the rescues that you see at sea, and all the Coastguard men and women doing the operational mission.

One of the things in our tour, we just looked at was our old gym. The gym use to be a chapel, and then it was a movie theater in World War II. And now we have aerobic equipment in there and we have free weights and whatnot. And it’s adequate and it works, but it’s not the optimal solution.

We’ll get a state-of-the-art gym and the rescue swimmer training facility, but still, we still have needs on the whole level for this base for state-of-the-art physical fitness and equipment for all the folks that come through the base.

SLD: And the point is you have 2,100 personnel, and they’re not all going to be rescue swimmers?

Captain Bennett: Correct.

SLD: When you showed me all the outdoor storage — things that are exposed outdoors, and the World War II structures. One of the things that folks should realize is this is hurricane country. And given that we’ve decided to consolidate all of our aircraft support structure here, one thing that would concern me is the need to improve from protection from just the high winds and the hurricanes in the area.

And so, it would be probably optimal if we had some new capacity here that was more state-of-the-art and also more hurricane protective.

Captain Bennett: Yes, that’s spot-on. We do have a lot of sheds, as you mentioned, and equipment outside that should be properly secured and housed in substantial buildings. One of my initiatives when I got here was try to get rid of some of our sheds if we have a big blow here.

We’re working towards that, but it’s still been kind of slow going because we’ve grown a lot faster than we’ve been able to get the infrastructure there. So what we do is when we do have a threat of a hurricane, we do take some stuff inside, secure things as best we can. But it is a concern, because this is North Carolina and we have been known to get some pretty big hurricanes through here.

Ironically, as we discussed though, sometimes the aftermath of a hurricane will be bad that we lose equipment and may have building damage. We do typically get some supplemental funding, which will help in the rebuild.

We were able to reconstitute our waterfront on the Pasquotank River through the last major hurricane that we had, and we purchased new riprap and we also reroofed some of our buildings.

So that’s kind of the plus and minus of the hurricane season, but it’s certainly not the way to hope for hurricanes or whatever to get money to help recapitalize your base.

SLD: Thank you very much Captain.

Essentially this is a World War II vintage base; it’s got a deep legacy here within the community in Elizabeth City. And it’s played a key role over the years since World War II. And really, any rescue that you see at sea or anything that the Coastguard’s doing out there on the high seas or picking up people locally in lakes, inland waterways, all that portion of the operations, you can reverse engineer from the operations to a base like Elizabeth City. For it is here where the folks go from to do the mission, where they’re trained, where they eat, where they sleep, and the equipment that they use and the training facility.

It’s something that the public at-large doesn’t see, but it’s very, very important to our Coastguard men and women.

———-

***Posted on August 24th, 2010

Zoltek Circumvents U.S. Export Controls By Moving Offshore

Posted on August 24, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

By Richard McCormack

Originally published in Manufacturing & Technology News on July 30, 2010

***

One American company selling a widely produced global product that the U.S. government says could be used by rogue states against American national security interests has found a way around U.S. government export controls.

Zoltek Corp., a St. Louis-based manufacturer of carbon-fiber, uses its factory in Hungary to supply international customers in countries that the United States government finds objectionable. Federal export controls make it impossible for Zoltek to sell products made at the company’s U.S. factory in Abilene, Texas, to many of its foreign customers.

Historically, the use of carbon fiber was limited to aerospace applications. But that has changed as applications have expanded beyond defense. Currently, Vestas, the wind-turbine producer in Denmark, is the largest consumer of carbon fibers in the world. Zoltek’s products are used in offshore drilling pipes, sporting goods, automobile parts, compressed natural gas and hydrogen tanks and in numerous industrial applications.

Zoltek had sales of $139 million last year (down from $186 million in 2008) and is one of the world’s largest producers of carbon fiber. “Our foreign industrial users of carbon fibers are unaccustomed to and understandably intimidated by the U.S. government’s involvement in their raw materials,” says Zoltek Chief Operating Officer Karen Bomba.

The U.S. government restricts the sale of U.S. carbon fiber products produced by Zoltek based on national security, nonproliferation and anti-terrorism reasons. Yet, the U.S. government “will not use our carbon fibers in those same products,” says Bomba.

The largest growing markets for Zoltek’s products are in China and India. It also has customers in Turkey, Croatia, Russia, Thailand and Singapore. Receiving an export license from the Hungarian government to serve these customers takes less than a week. In the United States, Zoltek submits its paperwork to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security and waits up to 45 days for approval. Zoltek’s customers won’t wait that long.

(Credit Graph: Zoltek Corporation)

But that’s the easy part of dealing with the U.S. government. “For the U.S. license, as many as three different types of documents are required and in some cases, [our customers] have to get those documents from their local governments,” Bomba told a recent hearing of the International Trade Commission. Zoltek must provide the U.S. government with import certificates from the foreign Ministry or Department of Commerce; a so-called US BIS-711; end-user certificates; and a letter of assurance from non-proliferation countries.

“For Hungarian licenses, the only thing that’s required is an end-user statement,” says Bomba.

But Hungary has made it even easier for Zoltek to export from its factory there to fast-growing markets. It has adopted a “global export license,” which reduces the amount of time it takes Zoltek to deal with paperwork from a week to nothing.

“As a result of the more cumbersome processes in the U.S., Zoltek ships to customers from Hungary when licenses are required,” says Bomba. “That means we produce in Hungary instead of the U.S. and we ship from Hungary versus losing the sale. Conversely, South Korea requires a license from Hungary and does not require a license from the U.S., so we ship from the United States” to customers in Korea.

The United States regulates sales of Zoltek’s U.S.-manufactured products to China, India, Taiwan and Turkey, yet all of those countries have carbon fiber production. “We have specifically had potential customers in China choose to buy carbon fiber from local Chinese producers, notably Yingyou Group and Dalian Ziangke, rather than complete the required U.S. export paperwork for sampling our fibers,” says Bomba.

“We have also seen customers in China import carbon fiber from Formosa in Taiwan with little or no regulatory oversight from the Chinese or Taiwanese government. The U.S. export regulations put Zoltek’s U.S. operations at a disadvantage to all other carbon fiber manufacturers in the world.”

Bomba recommends that the Bureau of Industry and Security re-examine all of its export regulations related to carbon fiber applications in industrial markets. It wants the U.S. to allow it to supply samples of its products to potential customers without having to obtain an export license. It recommends an acceleration of all export license applications, and it would like the U.S. government to create a “Global Export License” similar to the one used by the Hungarian government.

———-

***Posted on August 24^th, 2010

Iraq 2012: Anchoring Regional Security

Posted on August 24, 2010 | by SysAdmin | Leave a Comment

By Dr. Robbin Laird

Much of the Iraq withdrawal conversation has revolved around either the date of U.S. departure or protecting Americans left behind. Missing from the debate is arguably the most important strategic questions:

How will Iraqi security be guaranteed during Iraq’s continuing transition?
What U.S. security policy is necessary to help shape that guarantee?
And how will the re-entrance of Iraq into the global community affect stability in the region, notably the Iranian dynamic?
And how will security in a difficult neighborhood of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran be affected by developments in Iraq?

The U.S. can use this next phase to help shape positive responses to this questions seen from the U.S. or Western point of view. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how withdrawal unconnected to such questions is in the U.S. or regional strategic interest. I entered my time in the Washington bureaucracy dealing with the Iran-Iraq war in the early 1980s and no one at that time would have considered the one country without the other. Yet much of the current Iraq conversation seems to ignore such fundamental strategic context.

What are some of the key tools, which the U.S. could shape, in the next few years to work with the Iraqis and to contribute positively to regional security?

Training Iraqis on a Cessna Aircraft, November 10, 2008 (Credit Photo: Joint Combat Camera Center Iraq)

First, as the transition accelerates the most significant U.S. forces are air and naval forces. These forces are crucial in training Iraqis but also working with nascent Iraqi forces to ensure their territorial integrity as well as to build upon US working relationships in the region. The war in Kuwait was about territorial integrity, which remains a fundamental issue in the region. With all the emphasis on MRAPing operations, it is now time to step back and to re-invigorate air and naval forces in the region able to re-assure Iraq and deter Iran.

Second, the U.S. should provide or sell to the Iraqis American kit, which is useful to serving the first purpose.

The U.S. provided Cessna’s for ISR roles and these aircraft and systems are perfect for security missions and complete fast jets used for border patrols.

Project Liberty provided an over ally sophisticated system with sensors which are not exportable and not useful to the transition.

The USCG ships rejected in Deepwater and tied up in Baltimore should be provided to the Iraqis.

Indeed, the entire US effort to work with coastal navies and riverine forces can be augmented by practical experience with the Iraqis. Protecting oil rigs and infrastructure requires not only training but also the proper equipment.

Rather than buying Russian helos, it is a good tie to provide basic U.S. kit as basis of fostering a continuing relationship.

Iraqi Swift Boat Training, June 29th, 2010 (Credit Photo: USN Visual Services)

Third, Iraqi-American cooperation is a solid foundation for Western-Iraqi cooperation. Such cooperation is a crucial anchor to the deterrence of Iran and threats to Arab and Israeli interests. By shaping tools and capabilities to provide for Iraqi security beyond the tasks of internal security narrowly constructed, the US would provide an approach to how to endgame engagements. Although there is much military theory about intervention and war fighting, as well as growing literature on peacekeeping and counter-insurgency operations, the question of how one leverages a transition to achieve enhanced regional security is a missing subject. We need now to write this history and to shape a more effective understanding that are better choices than simply to be there or to leave. In the Middle East, the U.S. and the West will always be present. The question is how and to seek ways to be more effective. With the end of the massive engagement effort winding down, how can we shape an effective strategic engagement with Iraq to shape a more secure Middle East in the years ahead?

For other contributions to the Iraq 2012 discussion see our other publications:

https://www.sldinfo.com/?p=10054

https://www.sldinfo.com/?p=10303

https://www.sldinfo.com/?p=10824

———-

***Posted on August 24^th, 2010