AIA president says industry is still seeing ''the impact of COVID even 18 months later''™

On the same subject

• 

  June 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  L3 to Modernize Avionics for U.S. Air Force C-130Hs

  NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun. 6, 2019-- L3 Technologies (NYSE:LLL) announced today that it has been competitively awarded the $499 million U.S. Air Force C-130H Avionics Modernization Program Increment 2 (AMP INC 2). Under the contract, L3 will design, produce and certify a state-of-the-art modernization solution for a fleet of 176 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130H aircraft to improve aircraft availability, reliability and sustainability while significantly reducing life-cycle costs. This press release features multimedia. View the full release here:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190606005185/en/ L3's avionics and Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) upgrade solutions are fully certified for airworthiness and CNS/ATM compliance, and are flying today with U.S. and international customers. (Photo: Business Wire) “L3 is committed to delivering innovative, cost-effective solutions to ensure mission readiness in support of the U.S. Air Force's modernization strategy,” said Christopher E. Kubasik, L3's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. “We are focused on providing an agile and low-risk approach to modernizing the Air Force's diverse fleet of C-130s, enabling these assets to operate well into the future.” Modernization solutions will include integration of a commercial off-the-shelf avionics suite, as well as L3's training integration and services. Development, initial- and full-rate production will take place at L3's facility in Waco, Texas, on multiple C-130H variants, including the C-130H1, C-130H2, C-130H2.5, C-130H3 and LC-130H. “L3's aircraft modernization and modification capabilities are world-class,” said Jeff Miller, L3's Senior Vice President and President of its ISR Systems segment, which includes the Waco facility where work on the AMP will be centered. “Our skilled workforce and our unique 1.25-million-square-foot facility in Waco will provide differentiated capabilities for C-130H fleet longevity.” L3 has more than 65 years of experience as an aircraft systems integrator, including modernizing avionics for C-130 aircraft in the U.S. Air Force fleet and for international allies. The company's tailored C-130 solutions feature a modern cockpit and open-architecture solutions that integrate avionics from leading providers, and are fully certified for airworthiness and Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) compliance. L3's aircraft modernization and modification facilities are capable of retrofit, modernization and production for both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, delivering a broad range of aerospace modification and integration solutions to keep international military, head-of-state, government and commercial customers safe and mission-ready. L3 supports aircraft of all types, sizes and missions, with industry-leading capability to provide complex aircraft conversions; maritime, ISR, command and control, and airborne systems missionization; depot fleet maintenance and modification; and highly customized design, integration and certification of mission subsystems and interiors. With headquarters in New York City and approximately 31,000 employees worldwide, L3 develops advanced defense technologies and commercial solutions in pilot training, aviation security, night vision and EO/IR, weapons, maritime systems and space. The company reported 2018 sales of $10.2 billion. To learn more about L3, please visit the company's website at www.L3T.com. L3 uses its website as a channel of distribution of material company information. Financial and other material information regarding L3 is routinely posted on the company's website and is readily accessible. Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 Except for historical information contained herein, the matters set forth in this news release are forward-looking statements. Statements that are predictive in nature, that depend upon or refer to events or conditions or that include words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates,” “will,” “could” and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements set forth above involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any such statement, including the risks and uncertainties discussed in the company's Safe Harbor Compliance Statement for Forward-Looking Statements included in the company's recent filings, including Forms 10-K and 10-Q, with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made, and the company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements. https://www.l3t.com/press-release/l3-modernize-avionics-us-air-force-c-130hs

• 

  July 16, 2020 | International, Land

  Key House Democrats want to lock in New START weapons limits

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The chairmen of the House foreign affairs and intelligence committees are pushing a measure meant to extend the last remaining U.S.-Russia arms control agreement amid fears President Donald Trump will let it lapse. Led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the proposal would require congressional approval to increase the nuclear arsenal above the limits of the 2010 New START treaty, if the pact is allowed to expire next year. The measure was offered as an amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, which is set for floor consideration next week. Engel's amendment was cosponsored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and House Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee Chairman Jim Langevin, D-R.I. “This Administration's recklessness has left New START as the only remaining agreement limiting Russia's nuclear weapons. Despite the White House's claims, there's no ‘better deal' with Russia and China on the horizon, and the clock on New START is ticking,” Engel said in a statement. “The president doesn't seem to have a problem with Russia developing more and more nuclear weapons that could strike the United States, so Congress has to do everything we can to keep these protections in place.” The action came days after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned he's not very optimistic about prospects for an extension because of Washington's focus on making China sign onto the pact. U.S. and Russian envoys held talks last month in Vienna, but Beijing has refused to take part. Engel's amendment states that the U.S. should extend the pact for five years, to an expiration date of February 5, 2026, unless Russia is in material breach of the treaty or if it is replaced by a new, stronger agreement. It also provides the executive branch with permission to continue inspection activities and other transparency measures if New START expires on February 5, 2021, assuming that the government of Russia reciprocates these steps The New START treaty limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers and envisages sweeping on-site inspections to verify compliance. The amendment would bar funding to increase the arsenal above the treaty limits unless the president notifies Congress in advance of the new military requirements, certifies that the additional deployments are necessary and justifies the deployments, reports the associated costs and operational implications, and requires that any increase in deployed nuclear weapons is subject to a joint resolution of approval. It also requires detailed reports on Russian nuclear forces and, with and eye toward potential growth in China's nuclear arsenal, requires briefings and reports regarding the administration's arms control approach with Beijing, according to a summary. It also requires a presidential certification before New START would lapse that this would serve U.S. national security interests, an assessment whether continuing limits on Russian nuclear forces would serve U.S. interests and a plan for how the U.S. military and intelligence communities will address the post-New START environment, including the potential funding and development of additional nuclear deterrence and intelligence requirements. If Engel's amendment is accepted by the House Rules Committee and adopted by the House, it would almost certainly invite resistance from hawkish supporters of the president during negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the NDAA. Senate Armed Services Committee's Chairman Jim Inhofe, a proponent of nuclear weapons spending, has historically been a skeptic of the treaty. Kingston Reif, the Arms Control Association's director for disarmament and threat reduction policy, said the Trump administration doesn't seem like it will extend New Start and that Congress ought to be putting in roadblocks. “Crucially, the amendment would require congressional approval to increase the nuclear arsenal above the treaty limits, if the treaty is allowed to expire next year. A decision as consequential as increasing the size of the deployed arsenal, which hasn't occurred in decades, merits special scrutiny,” Reif said. After both Moscow and Washington withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty last year, New START is the only remaining nuclear arms control deal between the two countries. Russia has offered its extension without any conditions, while the Trump administration has pushed for a new arms control agreement that would also include China. Moscow has described that idea as unfeasible, pointing at Beijing's refusal to negotiate any deal that would reduce its much smaller nuclear arsenal. Trump declared an intention to pull out of the agreement in May, citing Russian violations. Russia denied breaching the pact, which came into force in 2002, and the European Union has urged the U.S. to reconsider. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/07/15/key-house-democrats-want-to-lock-in-new-start-weapons-limits/

• 

  July 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Europe must take on its own defense responsibilities

  By: Ian Bond As they look at the state of their coronavirus-hit economies and U.S. President Donald Trump's poor standing in opinion polls, many European leaders may be tempted to put on hold any plans to meet NATO's target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. But Europeans need to wake up. Trump is not a reliable ally, and the damage he has done to the trans-Atlantic partnership is likely to linger. Trump's hostility to NATO has been obvious since he called into question its Article 5 mutual defense guarantee during his last presidential campaign. We now know, according to former national security adviser John Bolton's tell-all memoir, that Trump was ready to pull the U.S. out of NATO at its 2018 summit. In recent weeks Trump announced without warning that the U.S. will withdraw 9,500 — more than one quarter — of the 34,500 troops it has stationed in Germany because the German government is not spending enough on defense. Then at a Washington press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump said a large number of NATO countries were “delinquent” and declared that Europe was taking “tremendous advantage of the United States on trade.” Trump may not understand how NATO works or the value to the U.S. of having troops in Germany, but it is true that the U.S. carries a disproportionately large share of the financial burden of defending Europe. During his presidency, Barack Obama also accused Europe of being “complacent” about its own defense — though he was rather more diplomatic. Only a handful of European NATO members have met the alliance's target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense over the past 20 years, while the U.S. has consistently exceeded it, spending 3.1-4.9 percent. But Europe's problem is not just the amount it spends on defense, but the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of its spending: Europeans get far too many systems and far too little military capability for their money. The European Commission's 2017 fact sheet on European defense reported that European Union member states operated 178 different major weapons systems; the U.S. had only 30. EU member states have 17 different types of main battle tank; the U.S. has one. This proliferation of weapons systems leads to high unit costs for short production runs, and a lack of interoperability. And European spending is not directed to ensuring that troops can fight when needed. The European members of NATO have almost 1.9 million active-duty troops, while the U.S. has 1.3 million and Russia about 900,000. But very few of the European forces can be deployed in a crisis. Politically and economically, this is a bad time to try to get European politicians to think seriously about increasing and rationalizing defense spending. The EU's economic forecast for spring 2020 foresees a contraction in real GDP of 7.4 percent this year, albeit followed by an increase of 6.1 percent in 2021. Some of Europe's biggest investors in defense are in NATO but not in the EU. The U.K. accounted for 16 percent of defense spending in Europe in 2019, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. But despite some early promise, Britain seems to have lost interest in any institutionalized cooperation with the EU on foreign and security policy. Relations between the EU and NATO member Turkey, which accounted for another 7 percent of European defense spending last year, have rarely been worse. Despite such difficulties, the fact that NATO and the EU are currently both reassessing the security environment presents an opportunity for a more joint approach. NATO is engaged in the #NATO2030 process, which Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg hopes will strengthen political consultation in the alliance. Meanwhile, by the end of 2020 the EU aims to complete a process to assess the threats it faces, which the bloc calls its “strategic compass.” These two efforts need to complement each other to produce a shared view of the threats to Europe, and the creation of a forum for political dialogue on security where European countries, regardless of whether they belong to both the EU and NATO, can discuss appropriate responses. Europe's ability to counter threats will depend on making its money go further by spending it efficiently, both nationally and multilaterally. The commission should do more to ensure that more defense procurement involves competitive tendering, rather than member states awarding contracts to national champions. But it should not try to shut defense firms from non-EU NATO countries out of the European market. The commission stands more chance of influencing the research and procurement decisions of member states if it has a substantial budget to dangle in front of them. It should keep pushing back against cuts proposed earlier in the year to the defense elements of the EU's next seven-year budget. And the commission needs to be more open to the participation of “friendly” countries in EU-funded programs. Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice president and a contender in the current presidential race, would be an easier president for Europeans to work with than Trump has been. But Biden's victory in November is not guaranteed. Moreover, the forces in U.S. society that propelled Trump to power in 2016 will still exist, and may return in 2024. Even if they would rather pretend that nothing is changing, the EU and as many non-EU, Europe-based NATO members as are willing to do so need to pay attention to Trump's message. And they need to start thinking about how to defend Europe and deter potential adversaries with reduced U.S. help. Ian Bond is the director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform think tank. He was a member of the British diplomatic service for 28 years, most recently serving as political counselor and joint head of the foreign and security policy group in the British Embassy in the United States. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/03/europe-must-take-on-its-own-defense-responsibilities/