Navy Aviation News

Navy Aviation News from the
Association of Naval Aviation Hampton Roads Squadron

Local Panel Wants Justifications For Carrier Move
Legislation To Block Navy Airfield Is Grounded
Cost Overruns, Delays Trigger Intensified Scrutiny Of F-35 Program
Sky's The Limit For National Flight Academy
U.S. Marines May Get Some Non-STOVL F-35s
Navy Chief Optimistic F-35 Will Enter Fleet On Schedule
Carter To Brief F-35 Partners On Program Changes
Noisy Jets Won't Be Issue At City Hall
Navy Needs More Time For Super Hornet Deal

 

 

Local Panel Wants Justifications For Carrier Move

(NORFOLK VIRGINIAN-PILOT 10 MAR 10) ... Bill Bartel

A panel of Hampton Roads congressmen, elected state and city leaders, and retired military officers sent a letter to top Navy officials Tuesday asking pointed questions about plans to move an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Mayport, Fla.

As part of its search for a way to block the Navy's plans, the Hampton Roads Military Affairs Commission asked that the Navy provide "a business-like analysis that objectively addresses the financial and operational tradeoffs of this proposal, as well as the threat assessment that warrants such an undertaking."

The letter was addressed to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations.

Navy and Defense Department officials have said a nuclear-powered carrier needs to be relocated to Mayport because of concerns about a possible terrorist attack or man-made or natural disasters in Norfolk - the only aircraft-carrier homeport on the East Coast.

Virginia's congressmen and other opponents have said the Navy has failed to offer any deep analysis that justifies those concerns.

"The bottom line is that the Navy has not made the case for spending over $1 billion to create a redundant East Coast carrier homeport, and there are far more questions than answers about this proposal," U.S. Rep. Glenn Nye said in a news release.

Nye organized and leads the commission, whose members indicated last week that one strategy for blocking the move may be demonstrating that the actual cost of moving a carrier is much higher than the Navy's $500 million-plus estimate.

Back To Top

 

Legislation To Block Navy Airfield Is Grounded

(PETERSBURG PROGRESS-INDEX (VA) 09 MAR 10) ... Sarah Sonies

RICHMOND - Legislation that could have stopped the U.S. Navy from locating an outlying landing field in the Tidewater area, including a proposed airfield bordering Prince George County, has been refused permission for takeoff this year. But landing field opponents aren't giving up.

The House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee quietly killed House Bill 887, sponsored by Del. William K. Barlow, D-Smithfield. The panel failed to act on the bill by Feb. 16, the deadline for legislation to win approval from its originating chamber.

But Barlow said the fight isn't over.

"We knew in the beginning that it would be an uphill battle. We are certainly not giving up and not going to drop this. We are going to continue to try to get the Navy to reconsider possible locations for the OLF," Barlow said.

The proposed $200 million outlying landing field was meant to give Navy pilots practice in simulated aircraft carrier landings and takeoffs. The roughly $200 million project would encompass 2,000 acres of a core area and another 28,000-acre buffer zone. The Navy would look to purchase or lease 2,000 acres for the core area, which would include an 8,000-foot runway, aircraft traffic control tower/operations support center, aircraft and vehicle refueling stations, airport rescue and fire fighting facility, fire fighting training area, and rotating beacon tower.

The Navy is considering five sites for an outlying landing field - three in southeastern Virginia and two in northeastern North Carolina. The Virginia sites are:

- Cabin Point in Surry County, bordering Prince George and Sussex counties. The Surry County site spills over into Prince George County and is 18 miles away from Petersburg.

- Dory in Southampton County.

- Mason, straddling Sussex and Southampton counties, bordering Greenville County.

Two bills aimed at blocking the location of an outlying landing field in Virginia were filed for consideration during the General Assembly's 2010 session:

- Senate Bill 6, sponsored by Sen. Frederick M. Quayle, R-Suffolk, would have required that the U.S. Navy ask permission from the General Assembly before acquiring property for an outlying landing field. In January, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee voted 8-5 that the bill be "passed by indefinitely," thus killing it.

- HB 887 would have ensured that local officials could control land use and could stop the Navy from taking land for an outlying landing field. It was left in the House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee after a subcommittee recommended the bill be tabled.

Barlow said HB 887 failed partly because of strong opposition from people affiliated with Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach.

"The bill is dead because the city of Virginia Beach was adamantly opposed to this legislation, and they fought very hard against it," Barlow said. "The state of Virginia will do what we can as a commonwealth to support Oceana."

Quayle also blamed the legislation's defeat on the opposition from the Navy and representatives from Virginia Beach.

"My counties are being asked to solve Virginia Beach problems, and they are not getting any of the benefits that Virginia Beach gets," Quayle said.

Tony Clark, the chairman of Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, agreed that the outlying landing field legislation was an uphill battle.

"We weren't surprised that it wasn't passed into law," Clark said. "It is disappointing that a legislature would not have the courage to have an up-or-down vote on a piece of legislation, but nonetheless we thank Quayle and Barlow for introducing the legislation supporting our position."

The U.S. Fleet Forces Command declined to comment on the failed legislation. Its policy is "not to comment on legislation pending or that has been voted down."

The Navy has said that delays have pushed the landing field's timeline back so far that its construction would coincide with discussions about where to base F-35Cs. The Navy has decided that instead of proceeding with controversial plans for a landing field, it makes more sense to wait to see if Virginia Beach will be home to squadrons of F-35Cs.

Back To Top

 

Cost Overruns, Delays Trigger Intensified Scrutiny Of F-35 Program

(CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY TODAY 08 MAR 10) ... John M. Donnelly

Responding to growing concern about delays and ballooning costs in the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history, the Senate Armed Services Committee has hastily arranged a March 11 hearing to grill Defense Department officials on problems surrounding the Joint Strike Fighter.

That hearing will almost certainly not be the last to examine the F-35 program, which is increasingly under the spotlight on Capitol Hill. “I’m very concerned about the stability of that program,” said John McCain of Arizona, the panel’s ranking Republican, during a March 4 hearing on the Air Force budget.

The Pentagon wants to buy 2,456 of the stealthy fighter jets, with variants for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. U.S. allies plan to purchase many more. Lawmakers are increasingly worried about the progress of the F-35, and allies that have shared in the program’s costs are keeping an eye on its troubles — and politicians’ reactions.

The Pentagon’s latest official projection of the total cost of the program is $298.8 billion. But Defense officials now say that the F-35 is all but certain to cost many billions more and take at least a year longer to develop. Air Force officials acknowledged for the first time last week that the date when their first operational squadrons will have a combat capability appears poised to slip two years, to 2015.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired the program manager last month and slashed by $614 million the award fees paid to the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp.

To the F-35’s advocates, these corrective actions show that the program is now on a more solid footing. The Pentagon, they say, has become more realistic about the additional testing needed and the higher costs that entails.

Either way, the F-35 is, in a sense, the only plane in town. Because President Obama and Congress terminated the F-22 fighter last year, they now effectively have no choice but to build the F-35. The military can still order advanced fighters, including the Navy’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, and it relies increasingly on armed drones. But when it comes to the next generation of manned fighter jets, the F-35 is it.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said at last week’s Armed Services Committee hearing that the likelihood of F-35 delays and cost growth was well known to the Air Force before Congress voted last year not to buy more F-22s. Chambliss pressed Air Force leaders on why they did not tell lawmakers then about the likely problems. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force’s chief of staff, replied that the full dimension of the troubles had not been validated.

Ashton B. Carter, the Pentagon’s acquisitions undersecretary, told reporters in a March 4 conference call that the plane has no fundamental technological or manufacturing problems.But critics say that if the record of major Pentagon weapons programs holds true to form, more bad F-35 news is yet to come. And lawmakers and their aides are frustrated that they are not getting the full story about the F-35 in a timely manner.

McCain said he is worried about the difficulty of managing complex software in the F-35 cockpits and fixing manufacturing glitches. McCain is also not pleased that Gates testified just last month that the initial capability dates would not slip, even as he said the production phase of the program would be set back 13 months. Citing the Air Force’s disclosure a month later of a two-year delay in fielding the plane, McCain and others said they feel Congress has not been adequately informed about the program.

Air Force officials say that at the time, neither they nor Gates knew how the development difficulties could affect the fielding dates.

But McCain said that what he termed a lack of full disclosure “frustrates the ability of this committee to subject this program to proper congressional oversight.”

At the March 11 hearing, McCain and his colleagues will get to question Carter and Christine H. Fox, director of the department’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.

The House Armed Services Committee plans a March 24 hearing to examine several issues, including the overall F-35 program and whether to continue developing a second set of engines for that plane. Obama opposes a second engine, but Congress has repeatedly funded its development.

The new scrutiny of the F-35 comes as the Armed Services and Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense in both chambers weigh the administration’s request for $11.5 billion in fiscal 2011 for 43 F-35 aircraft for the three services.

Back To Top

Sky's The Limit For National Flight Academy

Facility To Teach Through Aviation

(PENSACOLA NEWS JOURNAL (FL) 07 MAR 10) ... Travis Griggs

Construction on the National Flight Academy facilities at Pensacola Naval Air Station is on course and full speed ahead.

Thursday morning, flight academy Vice President Kevin King donned a hard hat and took news reporters on a tour of the academy's facilities, which are under construction adjacent to the National Naval Aviation Museum.

When it opens as scheduled in the summer of 2012, the National Flight Academy will be a 5½-day educational camp for students in grades 7-12. The camp will use a Naval-aviation-themed environment to teach students about science, technology, engineering and math.

The academy is being outfitted to replicate an aircraft carrier — complete with bunks and ready rooms — where students will prepare to fly missions in aircraft simulators.

"It's quite incredible," King said. "No one has done this before, and no one is doing this now."

The flight academy project includes a 102,000-square-foot academy building and a 55,000-square-foot addition to the Naval aviation museum, both of which are under construction.

"All these facilities are designed to work together," King said.

King said flight academy officials raided the museum's warehouse to find authentic equipment from decommissioned Navy ships, which they will use to dress up parts of the academy.

King said that such details will further the academy's goal of immersing students in the Navy experience.

"We use all the terms for a ship. This is not a floor — it's a deck. This is not a door — it's a hatch," King said, pointing to building features on the second floor of the academy.

"These buildings are going to be far better than anyone can imagine," King said.

King said much attention is being focused on the academy's centerpieces: a pair of bays with space for up to 48 flight simulators.

"It will be the largest collection outside of the Department of Defense," King said.

Aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin each donated $2 million to outfit the simulator bays, King said.

Ground was broken on the project in June. Pensacola-based firms Greenhut Construction Co. and Caldwell Associates Architects are in charge of design and construction.

The academy's grand opening was initially scheduled for May 2011, but officials have since pushed back the opening to summer 2012.

"One of our priorities is to do it right, so we didn't want to rush the opening," said Christy Carroll, who was recently hired as the academy's dean of education.

Carroll is developing academy curricula and said the academy is working with local schools and several universities to create programs that appeal to diverse groups.

In addition to the summer camp program, the building will have facilities to host up to 16 adult guests for corporate team-building workshops or a planned adult fantasy camp. King said the adult programs are tailored for grown-ups who want a taste of the Naval aviation experience.

"It's an adventure-type experience that people our age are kind of looking for," King said.

Back To Top

 

U.S. Marines May Get Some Non-STOVL F-35s

(DEFENSE NEWS 03 MAR 10) ... John Reed

The U.S. Marines may get some carrier-borne F-35Cs with their short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35Bs, a senior U.S. Navy aviation official said March 3.

The Marine Corps will start flying F-35Bs from amphibious assault ships in 2012, according to a Navy official. The Navy Department is considering giving the Corps some of the catapult-ready F-35Cs so they can fly from aircraft carriers. (Andy Wolfe / Lockheed Martin) The Navy Department, which is planning to buy a total of 680 Lockheed Martin Lightning II strike fighters for the two services, has not yet decided how many of each variant will go to each branch, said Rear Adm. David "Deke" Philman, the Navy staff's air warfare director.

Right now, the Marines are to start flying F-35Bs from amphibious assault ships in 2012, Philbin said.

Department officials are considering giving the Corps some of the catapult-ready F-35Cs so they can fly from aircraft carriers, he said.

"The question of the mix is, 'Will the Marines fly tailhook versions'" or even B-models from conventional aircraft carriers, Philman said during a speech in Arlington, Va.

After the speech, he told reporters that the Navy is looking at "what is the requirement for the Navy, what is the requirement for the Marine Corps and how does that fit into the greater DON [Department of the Navy] construct."

Recent trouble with the entire F-35 program has led the sea service to re-evaluate the planned initial operational capability date of 2014, Philman said.

Back To Top

 

Navy Chief Optimistic F-35 Will Enter Fleet On Schedule

(NATIONAL JOURNAL CONGRESS DAILY 03 MAR 10) ... Megan Scully

The Navy's top officer on Tuesday expressed hope that the aircraft carrier-based version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not have the same prolonged delays that are plaguing the Air Force's variant of the stealthy jet.

During an interview at the Pentagon, Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead said the Navy is reviewing recent program changes, but he believes the Navy will benefit from being the last of the services to receive the F-35 and, ultimately, will stick close to its 2014 date for initial operational use.

"I think we, as a service, have the advantage in that we're third in line," Roughead said. "And I'm not looking at life through rose-colored glasses, but I think we're in a better position to perhaps stay close to our IOC [initial operational capability] because there's a lot of work being done to keep the other people on IOC and minimize that [delay]," he added.

As a result of delays in the program's development, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley has said his service's date for initial operational use will slip from FY13 to late calendar year 2015.

Donley said at a breakfast Tuesday that the decision to push back the Air Force's schedule came after the Defense Department reviewed independent estimates that pointed to significant schedule delays and price increases on the aircraft program.

"We're still working through all the implications of the program adjustments going forward," he said. "That work is ongoing."

Meanwhile, the Marine Corps, the first service to receive the fighters, plans to stick to its 2012 date for operational use, a spokesman said Tuesday. The service has not modernized its fighter fleet in more than a decade.

"We're really [eager] to have the Joint Strike Fighter come online when it's supposed to with the capacities that we believe it has," Marine Corps Commandant James Conway told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

For FY11, the Pentagon is requesting $8.7 billion in procurement funding to buy 43 F-35s, plus $2.3 billion for continued research and development and $535 million for spare parts.

All told, the three services will buy more than 2,400 F-35s to replace aging F-16s, F-18s, AV-8s and A-10s, making the F-35 the largest program on the Pentagon's books.

"The JSF program is going to be a program that's going to be very, very closely scrutinized and watched and monitored," Roughead said. "There should be no question that we in the Navy have to get to that airplane."

As it awaits the F-35, the Navy is trying to manage a strike fighter shortfall, which Roughead estimates is at about 100 aircraft.

The admiral says he plans to mitigate the shortfall by breathing life into older F-18 Hornets through a service-life extension program, which would add a few years of operations to the planes. He dismissed any efforts to buy more of the popular F/A-18E/F Super Hornets than are now planned, saying that doing so is simply not affordable given other budget pressures.

"I think all too often people deal with specific programmatic issues and you get into, 'It's only this for that'," Roughead said. "You really do lose sight of ... where do you get that additional amount of money and what suffers as a result of that."

But the Navy still plans to buy 66 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets between FY10 and FY13. Those planes could become part of a multiyear procurement deal with maker Boeing Co. that also would include 58 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft based on the same airframe.

On Monday, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn asked Congress for an extension of its March 1 deadline for a decision on a multiyear purchase agreement for F/A-18s, saying officials need to review the Boeing's offer to determine if a long-term commitment is cost effective.

Roughead said he supports a multiyear pact if the Pentagon can verify Boeing's claims that it will cut 10 percent off the costs of the jets. He also said he expects officials to decide on the matter quickly.

"I'm of the mind that we want to get it done fast and not to draw this out because if we're granted the extension I don't want to abuse that consideration that they've given us," he said.

Back To Top

 

Carter To Brief F-35 Partners On Program Changes

(DEFENSE NEWS 02 MAR 10) ... John T. Bennett

U.S. defense acquisition chief Ashton Carter will huddle March 4 with other military procurement chiefs about Pentagon plans to restructure the multination F-35 fighter program, a Pentagon official says.

The high-level session will take place at prime contractor Lockheed Martin's F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, the official said.

During the "CEOs conference," as two sources called it, Carter will brief "his counterparts" from the eight nations that are Washington's official partners on the fifth-generation fighter effort, according to the Pentagon official.

Lockheed Martin spokesman Christian Geisel said the international meeting has been on the books since last April. Such sessions are held annually, he said.

Carter is set to explain to the other defense procurement chiefs in detail how the Pentagon has restructured the F-35 program, the official said. Also expected to be a part of the agenda is how DoD intends to revamp the program's annual budget, as well as details about Washington's adjusted yearly buy rate.

The United Kingdom is considered a "level one" partner on the effort, while Italy and the Netherlands are "level two partners," according to a Lockheed Martin fact sheet.

Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey are listed on the fact sheet as "level three" partners," and Israel and Singapore are "foreign military sales participants."

Senior Pentagon brass late last year began a comprehensive relook at the program after an internal DoD study group estimated additional F-35 cost growth and schedule slips were coming.

That soup-to-nuts review, led by Carter, spanned several months and culminated with changes to the program's budget, buy rate and overall schedule.

The F-35 is slated to constitute the bulk of the U.S. military's future fighter arsenal. The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marines are each set to buy various models of the Lockheed-made warplane.

Attendees will "include Department of Defense, and U.S. industrial leaders and the senior leadership of international partner-country governments, militaries, and industries to receive the latest update of F-35 program status and to address any JSF program-related issues," Geisel said. "The attendee list, which will include officials from the U.S. services, "has been consistent from year to year," he added.

"Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office will present several joint program-update briefings on a variety of topics," Geisel said.

Back To Top

Noisy Jets Won't Be Issue At City Hall

F-35 Fighter Jets Will Take Off, Land Elsewhere

(WALA-TV MOBILE (AL) 02 MAR 10) ... Christina Leavenworth

Valparaiso, Fla. -- It's the largest joint military project ever in history. The Air Force, Marines, Navy and nine countries are sharing the cost, training, and technology for the F-35 joint strike fighter. The training center will be at Eglin Air Force Base.

However, a lawsuit was standing in the way. The city of Valparaiso sued the Air Force because of the noise the jets would cause.

"It was always the city's position there were other reasonable alternatives other than flying right over the heart of the city, and rendering approximately 40 percent of it uninhabitable," said Valparaiso's attorney, Doug Wyckoff.

Monday night, it was settled.

"A very old lawyer told me a long time ago, 'The worst settlement is better than the best trial.' You know exactly what you are getting. This settlement is giving the city more than it necessarily would have gotten by trying the lawsuit and winning," said Wyckoff.

The F-35 was originally going to take off from a runway that would have the jets flying over city hall every day. Now, they'll only take that route in an emergency.

"They're currently evaluating 18 different alternatives, different permutations of various air fields that are within the reservation," said Wyckoff.

The Air Force will also pay $60,000 of the city's attorney fees. Many people in town still wonder why this started in the first place.

"I don't think they should have done it to start with," said resident Bob Stafford.

"I'm so used to hearing them anyhow. It doesn't matter, just get used to hearing a different noise," resident Deanna Strait added.

The Air Force will now look at other places to take off and land.

Valparaiso will still has the right to sue the air force if the final record of decision will negatively affect residents. A copy of the settlement is available here .

Kathleen Ferguson, the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations said:

"The Air Force is committed to an open and transparent process to address F-35 basing issues. We are working hard to ensure affected communities are involved, know what to expect, and that they appreciate and are confident the Air Force is willing to listen to their concerns. I thank the city of Valparaiso for its commitment to work with us."

Back To Top

 

Navy Needs More Time For Super Hornet Deal

(THE HILL 01 MAR 10) ... Roxana Tiron

Boeing and the Navy are working to bring down the cost of a multiyear contract for fighter jets to make the deal more palatable to Pentagon leaders.

As a result, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn on Monday asked for an extension on the deadline to notify Congress of a new multiyear contract to have Boeing build F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.

Lynn told the congressional defense committees on Monday that the Pentagon would need more time to evaluate a contract offer it received from Boeing.

A spokesman for Navy acquisition said the Navy had recently received a “viable offer” from Boeing on a multiyear contract to build 124 F/A-18 series aircraft.

“The Navy has been working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress, and needs additional time to properly evaluate the offer. No decision has yet been made, and the department will work with Congress on how to best move forward,” said Cmdr. Victor Chen, a spokesman for Navy acquisition. “The Navy is committed to reducing acquisition costs while delivering capability to the war fighter.”

The Navy had been expected to inform Congress on Monday whether it planned to strike the deal.

Boeing and its congressional supporters have been pressing for a long-term contract for several years. The idea is to save money on the planes by offering the contractor the predictability of production and deliveries over four to five years.

Congressional supporters also aim to stave off a shortfall of fighter jets on the decks of the Navy’s carriers. The shortfall, expected to peak in 2016-2017, has been a matter of debate between Congress and the Pentagon for several years.

That debate is fresh on lawmakers’ minds. Pentagon leaders recently restructured the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program that would build next-generation fighters for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. Lawmakers fear this could lead to delays in the delivery of the F-35 to the Navy and Marine Corps.

The F-35 is supposed to replace the older versions of the F-18. Super Hornets, the newest version of the F-18, are supposed to share carrier deck space with the F-35 until 2030.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other Pentagon officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, are standing strongly by the F-35 as the next-generation fighter aircraft.

Gates in February hit against the notion of another multiyear contract for the Super Hornets, arguing that it would not bring the 10 percent in savings customary for such long-term contracts. Instead, Gates argued that a multiyear contract would shave only 6.5 percent off the price of a Super Hornet.

Meanwhile, Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee in early February that the Navy and Marine Corps were working hard to prevent the fighter shortfall. Mullen said that the Navy and Marine Corps reduced the gap from 245 to a “very low number.” Other Navy officials have argued that the force can manage with the holes the service will face as part of the F-35 restructuring.

One of Boeing’s strongest supporters for the multiyear contract, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), rejected Gates’s savings calculations. In a letter to Gates last month, Akin argued that Gates’s estimate was based on the 89 aircraft originally planned for fiscal years 2010 through 2013.

Congress added nine aircraft to the 2010 budget, and the Navy’s 2011 budget request includes plans to buy 124 more Super Hornets as well as the electronic attack version of the planes over the next several fiscal years.

The increased purchases will represent savings that “far exceed” the 6.5 percent if the planes were bought as part of a multiyear contract, according to Akin, the ranking member of the Armed Services Seapower subcommittee.

“Adding 35 aircraft [to the 89] and an additional year of production could easily push the savings close to $500 million,” Akin wrote to Gates.

Akin, whose district represents the St. Louis plant where Boeing builds the planes, also argued that authorization language allows the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract even if the savings are below 10 percent because “definitive” actions need to be taken to mitigate the fighter shortfall.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the House Armed Services Committee in late February the Navy was working to meet the March 1 deadline for notifying Congress of its intent to enter into a multiyear contract for the Super Hornets.

“While I am encouraged that it seems the Navy sees the fiscal wisdom of entering into a multiyear contract for F/A-18s, I am concerned that this may also represent foot-dragging by the senior civilian leadership of the [Department of Defense],” Akin said in a statement Monday. “The Navy confirmed that they had a firm offer from Boeing that would save them 10 percent over the course of a multiyear contract.”

The request for the extension suggests the Navy needs more time to convince the Pentagon brass, which may still try to block the service’s efforts to enter a longer-term contract, according to a congressional source.

Back To Top