Transcript No Slide Title

Foreign
Comparative
Testing (FCT)
Col Eric Burns
Director
Israel 2009
Aug-Sept 2009
Comparative Testing Office
(CTO)
Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense
(Advanced System &
Concepts)
----------------------------------Email: [email protected]
Website: www.acq.osd.mil/cto
Phone: (703) 602-3740
Outline
• Global Defense Industry
• Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT)
– What We Do
– Interest Areas
– Program Metrics
• FCT Activity with Israel
– Current Ongoing Projects
– Successful Completions Procured
• Participation with FCT
– Best Practices
– Timeline
2
The FCT Mission
Deliver innovative, world-class products that
counter unconventional and time-critical threats
Global Defense Industry
- Based on 2008 Defense Revenue -
• Only 43 of the top 100 defense contractors, by revenues, are U.S.
companies
• 25 of the top 50 defense contractors are foreign
• 3 of the top 10 defense contractors are foreign
– #3: BAE Systems (United Kingdom)
– #7: EADS (Netherlands)
– #9: Finmeccanica (Italy)
• But 86% of the proposals we receive represent foreign contractors
smaller than the top 100
4
Source: Defense News (July 20, 2009)
4
FCT - What We Do
Fund Testing of World-Class Items that Solve Warfighter’s Problems
• Invest approximately $34M each year
• Find & Test “Here & Now” Solutions
 Projects begin within a year, end within 2-3 years
 Testing at U.S. or foreign ranges
 Project value: Range of $200K - $2M; average of $800K
• OSD Selects & Funds Projects
 Clear Goal: “Test to Procure”
• Services & USSOCOM Execute Our Programs
 Nominate mature military or commercial products
 Manage all testing and fielding
In 2009 we funded - • 15 continuing projects (~$18M)
• 16 new starts (~$14M)
5
Interest Areas
Improved Operations




Effectiveness (lethality, accuracy, endurance)
Survivability (protection, agility, stealth, medical)
Force Protection (defensive systems, detection, armoring, chem - bio defense)
Sustainability (lighter / combined equipment, longer missions, better batteries)
Direct Warfighter Support
 Logistics (supply chain management in the field, equipment reliability)
 Teaming (e.g., Network & Info Centric Operations at the tactical or operational level)
 Surveillance, tagging & tracking (blue & hostile forces, friendly identification)
Warfighter Employment




Planning capabilities (large unit employment)
Coordinating capabilities (Network / Info Centric Operations at the strategic level)
Transport capabilities (getting to and from the fight)
Operational readiness (equipment availability, maintainability, training)
Proposals MUST Satisfy Warfighter’s Needs
in Support of Overseas Contingency Operations
6
Service / USSOCOM Interests
(Examples)
Army
Air Force
• Platform & Soldier Protection
• Persistent ISR
• Countermine / Counter IED Capabilities
• Space Situational Awareness (3-D
Battlespace)
• Precision Fire
• Improved Power Sources
• High Resolution, Light Weight Sensors
• Robotics: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles &
Unmanned Ground Vehicles
• Counter IED Detonation & Protection
• Locate Target & Attack Moving Targets
• Improved Logistics to Reduce the
Footprint / Maintain tempo
• Low Yield Precision Weapons
Navy / Marine Corps
US Special Operations Command
• Vehicle Cooling
• Portable Unmanned Air Systems
• Non-Gasoline Burning Engines
• Aircraft Occupant Ballistic Protection
Systems
• Psychological Operations Broadcast
• Biometrics
• Persistent ISR
• Improved Medical Technology
• Airborne Countermeasures
• Maritime Force Protection
• Improved capabilities for
–
–
–
–
Fleet C4 ISR & Data Links
Security Solutions with Coalition Partners
Field Medical Capabilities
Speed for Small Water Craft
• Locate & Recover Isolated Personnel
7
FCT Metrics
- Over Last 29 Years 601 Projects Started, 514 Completed
279 Projects Met Service Requirements
200 Projects - Procurements Worth $9.0B
• Tested Products from 28 Countries
• OSD Investment: $1.17 Billion (constant FY09 $)
• Estimated RDT&E Cost Avoidance: $7.60 Billion
• Accelerated Fielding Averages 5-7 years
• Procurement Rate ~ 80% in the Past 6 Years
• Foreign Vendor Teaming with U.S. Industry in 33 States
8
FCT: Testing & Procurement
By Country (FY 1980 – 2009)
FCT Funding Provided - $1.17B
(Percent by Country)
France
9.9%
Germany
15.7%
UK
31.7%
Sweden
11.2%
Israel
6.3%
Canada
7.5%
Others *
17.7%
* Others -- Australia, Austria, Belgium, Croatia,
Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, India, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore,
Spain, South Africa, Switzerland, Ukraine
Procurements
($Million – Overall $9.06B)
France
$687
Germany
$1,249
Sweden
$1,109
Canada
$335
Others **
$649
Norway
$629
UK
$3,129
Israel
$858
Australia
$415
** Others -- Belgium, Denmark, Finland, India,
Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian
Federation, South Africa, Switzerland
* Reflects FY09 Constant Year Dollars
FCT with Israel
On-going Projects
Project
Company
Service
Started FY
M1A1 Crew Cooling System
Kinetics
USMC
2009
Advanced Airborne Expendable
IMI
Navy
2008
Projects Leading to Procurements (four most recent)
Project
Company
Service
Year
Procurement
Initiated
Corona Monitoring System for VLF/LF Comms
OFIL, Ltd.
Navy
2003
Man-Portable Multi Sensor System Headsets
And Sensors (Eagle Headset)
Source of Sound
USSOCOM
2003
Night Vision Goggle Camera System
Vectop, Ltd.
Air Force
2001
F-16 600 Gallon Tanks
Israel Military
Industries (IMI)
Air Force
1999
Since 1980 …
• 62 FCT Projects with Israel
• $65M in FCT Testing Funds to US Services & USSOCOM
• 13 Successful FCTs, with Procurement of $820M
Post FCT
Key Procurements from Israel
Night Vision Goggle Camera
Improved Mobile Subscriber
Equipment UHF Radios
F-16 600 Gallon Tanks
Man
Portable
MultiSensor
System
Headsets
and
Sensors
Corona
Monitoring
System for
High
Power
VLF/LF
Comms
13 Procurements Totaling $820M
What Makes Foreign Companies
Successful in FCT?
• Presence in the United States
– Strong support from their embassy in the US
 Industry days
 How DoD does business
– Professional consultants / active industry associations
– Trade shows for visibility
– Partnering with a US company (not required)
• Good relationship with the US Embassy Office of Defense
Cooperation (or similar organization) in their home country
– Great place to find out where to start
• Strong capabilities that fulfill U.S. Warfighter needs
– Can be a dominating industry presence
– Can be a niche market provider
12
Fiscal Year 2010 Timeline
Milestones for Fiscal Year 2010
Budget & Execution
JulAug
2009
Jun
2009
Feb
2009
Sep- Dec
2008
1 Oct
2009
Sep
2009
Fiscal Year 2010 Begins
New project start
OSD Approval
Subject Matter Expert Review
Fiscal Year 2010 Final Proposals Submitted
•
Bottom-Up Project Proposal Process – Submitter Works with
Services & USSOCOM to Develop Testing Proposals
Project Management Reviews with Services & USSOCOM
Services & USSOCOM Initiate Internal Proposal Call
Projects can be started throughout the fiscal year
13
Key Points of Contact
OSD
CTO Main
[email protected]
703.602.3740
Army
Al
Trawinski
[email protected]
703.866.0999
AF
Ronald
Meyers
ronald.meyers@ pentagon.af.mil 703.588.8949
USSOCOM Ron
Schwartz
[email protected]
813.826.1035
Navy /
USMC
[email protected]
703.696.0340
Arthur
Webb
14
In Summary
The Challenge to Change
Secretary Gates at
National Defense
University
(September 29, 2008)
Our conventional modernization programs seek a 99
percent solution in years. Stability and counterinsurgency
missions – the wars we are in – require 75 percent
solutions in months. The challenge is whether in our
bureaucracy and in our minds these two different
paradigms can be made to coexist.
15