An Aerojet Rocketdyne official says his company is well-positioned to develop large solid-rocket motors for the Air Force’s intercontinental ballistic missile replacement program under a Northrop Grumman prime contract or an integrated team approach with Boeing.
“We have had several interchanges and visits by Northrop Grumman to our Camden, AR, facility where we are investing in capability to be prepared for whatever stages we may win. Our building right now that we are in construction on can handle any stage of the program for the [engineering and manufacturing development] phase,” Aerojet Rocketdyne Chief Operating Officer Mark Tucker told Inside Defense in an Aug. 29 interview.
The domestic large SRM base is limited to two suppliers, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Northrop’s Orbital ATK, both of which are participating in each prime contract for the ongoing technology-maturation and risk-reduction phase of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program. Boeing listed Northrop’s “unfair advantage” in the SRM industry as a reason for its decision last month not to bid on the EMD contract under the current structure of the request for proposals.
Frank McCall, Boeing’s vice president and program manager for GBSD, told Inside Defense on Aug. 28 that the company is holding discussions with Northrop, the Air Force and other stakeholders about an integrated team approach for the EMD contract. In that model, Boeing expects the SRMs would come from Northrop and has not yet discussed Aerojet Rocketdyne’s participation.
Tucker said his company has worked with Northrop to include large SRM capabilities in its proposal for the EMD award.
“At this point, if [Boeing is] advocating, let Northrop handle the selection of that, we’re actively engaged with Northrop on what is the best combination of solid-rocket motor providers and supporters, how important it is that the nation retain the capability with a minimum of two large solid-rocket motor producers . . . and why it’s important for them to have redundancy, competition,” he said.
The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2017 report on defense industrial capabilities informed Congress of its concerns with maintaining a healthy and competitive large SRM base, stemming from limited opportunities for work on strategic missiles and space launch.
A winning team for GBSD that does not include Aerojet Rocketdyne producing at least one SRM stage “potentially leaves the United States with a single large SRM supplier, which can lead to cost increases due to lack of competition, decreases in internal research and development efforts, and risk of security of supply if a catastrophic accident should occur,” the report states.
Despite its concerns, the Defense Department is not requiring the GBSD prime contractors to use more than one large SRM provider as part of their EMD bids, but an industry insider told Inside Defense the RFP, which remains classified, allows for contracts to be awarded to different companies for the various stages of the large SRMs.
Tucker would not comment on whether Northrop has indicated that Aerojet Rocketdyne would have a place in its EMD proposal but said, “It is clearly our expectation that we are going to be given a fair opportunity to compete and where we provide the prime and the nation the best value, we expect to win.”
He added the company is well-suited in its technology for the fourth stage or post-boost propulsion system and has provided Northrop and Boeing with information on its capabilities.
While Tucker said Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Camden, AR, location can handle any stage of the EMD phase, upcoming contract decisions will determine whether the company will move ahead with certain production facilities.
“As we understand what sections we may or may not have the opportunity to win and produce, we are fully prepared and have adequate time to put production facilities in place to support the program. . . . We don’t want to go build capacity with uncertainty right now about what kind of rate we’ll be producing,” he said.
He added that if the company is excluded from GBSD, it would still support other defense programs and stay in the large SRM business “albeit at a very much diminished volume.”
Tucker also disagreed with arguments Boeing made in favor of an integrated team approach for GBSD, particularly McCall’s claim that a program baseline could be established in 2019 rather than late 2020 or early 2021 under the current model.
“Clearly, each prime has had a lot of time to put a schedule in place that is as aggressive but realistic as practical and I don’t see where dividing that up is going to accelerate it,” he said.
When asked if Aerojet Rocketdyne would consider filing a protest, Tucker said, “At this point, I don’t see anything that would lead us to a protest, but it’s really premature to speculate on that.”
Proposals for the GBSD EMD contract are due this December.