Back to news

October 21, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

CEO Q&A: L3’s Chris Kubasik and Harris’s Bill Brown

BY MARCUS WEISGERBER

Soon after the companies announced plans to form the world's 7th-largest defense firm, the CEOs rang up for a joint interview.

On Sunday, just after L3 Technologies and Harris Corp. announced their planned merger next year, I chatted with CEOs Chris Kubasik and Bill Brown about their plans to form L3 Harris Technologies, which would be the world's 7th-largest defense firm. Here are some excerpts.

Q. How did this come together?

Brown: Chris and I have known each other for a number of years here, and a lot of it started more socially, not from a business perspective. We work in the same space as complimentary businesses, complementary portfolios. Same [main] customer. You know we realized, given where we stack up in the defence hierarchy, this would be a great potential combination. We've been discussing it through the balance of this calendar year. [It] really picked up steam in the summer and were able to bring it forward here towards middle October.

Q. Why a merger rather than an acquisition by one partner?

Kubasik: Both companies are quite strong, and we're both on an upswing, and we looked at all the different stakeholders from the customers, the shareholders and the employees. And in our relative size and market value, a merger vehicle seems to be the absolute right way to go here. True partnership, as you've probably seen. 50/50 board. Bill and I have our leadership laid out clearly. It's absolutely the right way to do this. We're quite proud that we're able to pull it off. And I think it's the best way to serve all the stakeholders.

Q. Bill is going to be CEO until a transition to Chris in a couple of years. How will that work? And what happens to L3's New York office if the headquarters moves to Florida?

Brown: The combination in bringing these two great companies together is going to take a lot of work. So Chris and I will partner on this, in leading the company [and] clearly doing a lot of the integration. We're going to chair the integration committee together. I'll have responsibility for the enterprise functions, and Chris will keep an eye on the ball in what we do operationally in the business segments making sure that through to the integration we don't miss a beat in our growth agenda, meeting expectations of customers, delivering on programs. It's going to be a shared partnership in bringing the companies together.

Kubasik: On a combined basis, we have several thousand employees in the state of New York, a lot in Rochester, of course Long Island and the surrounding areas. We got to do to what we believe is best for the business. When you look at the Space Coast of Florida, the 7,000 or so employees and infrastructure in the Melbourne area, it's an easy decision. We'll be transitioning from the headquarters from New York and taking the best of the best and moving to Florida. At some point the Manhattan office will either be significantly scaled down or ultimately closed.

Q. Will the combined company divest or combine overlapping sectors?

Bill Brown: Very high and complimentary portfolios. So we see very, very, very little overlap.

Q. L3 has been on an acquisition spree in recent years. Should we expect more, perhaps in the maritime sphere?

Kubasik: Job one is going to be the integration for the first couple years, so there will be very, very few, if any, acquisitions the first couple of years. They would have to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We're going to focus first and foremost on integrating this company. Once we get this integrated, which is a three-year program, we'll update and modify the strategy as appropriate.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the proposed merged company's rank by revenue among global defense firms.

This Q&A is part of the weekly Global Business Brief newsletter by Marcus Weisgerber. Find the rest of this week's issue here,and subscribe to get it in your inbox, here.

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2018/10/q-ceos-chris-kubasik-and-bill-brown-l3-technologies-and-harris-corps/152135

On the same subject

  • Should the military treat the electromagnetic spectrum as its own domain?

    November 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Should the military treat the electromagnetic spectrum as its own domain?

    By: Nathan Strout Military leaders are reluctant to treat the electromagnetic spectrum as a separate domain of warfare as they do with air, land, sea, space and cyber, even as the service increasingly recognize the importance of superiority in this area. At the Association of Old Crows conference Oct. 30, representatives from the Army, Navy and Air Force weighed in on a lingering debate: whether the electromagnetic spectrum should be considered its own domain. In short, while the spectrum can legitimately be described as a physically distinct domain, it does not make sense logistically for the Department of Defense to declare it a separate domain of warfare, they said. “It's something that we've had a lot of discussion about ... In one way, you can argue that the physical nature of the electromagnetic spectrum, the physical nature of it being a domain. However, I understand the implications and those are different challenges for a large organization like the Department of Defense. So I think that there's a little bit of a different discussion when you talk about domain and what that implies for the Department of Defense and each of the departments in a different way,” said Brig. Gen. David Gaedecke, director of electromagnetic spectrum superiority for the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements. Regardless of whether it's an independent domain, military leaders made clear that leveraging the electromagnetic spectrum is a priority for every department and every platform. “We're going to operate from strategic down to tactical, and EMS ... is going to enable all of our forces to communicate and maneuver effectively, so we'll have a layered approach across all the domains that we operate in,” said Laurence Mixon from the Army's Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors. “EMS is definitely an aspect of the operational environment that every tactician has to be aware of, understand and leverage. And on the acquisition side we have to consider EMS when we are developing every one of our systems. I think since EMS crosses all of the domains that we currently have today that we identify and use in the joint parlance--I don't think the Army is ready to call it a domain." Similarly, while the Navy is working to understand how EMS works best within the maritime domain, Rear Adm. Steve Parode, director of the Navy's Warfare Integration Directorate, N2/N6F, indicated that there was no rush to declare EMS a separate domain. “For the Navy, we're pretty comfortable with the way we are into the maritime domain as our principal operational sphere. We are working through understanding the EMS and the way it relates to physical properties in that domain. We know where we're strong and we know where we're weak. And we understand principally why we're weak. We're making decisions about how to get better,” said Parode. https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2019/11/06/should-the-military-treat-the-electromagnetic-spectrum-as-its-own-domain/

  • How the US replaced Russia’s RD-180 engine, strengthening competition

    January 11, 2024 | International, Aerospace

    How the US replaced Russia’s RD-180 engine, strengthening competition

    Opinion: The Vulcan launch and engine development should be considered a success story for U.S. industrial policy.

  • Le missile Air-Air très longue portée russe R37M entrera bientôt en service

    October 1, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Le missile Air-Air très longue portée russe R37M entrera bientôt en service

    FABRICE WOLF Avec plus de 4000 avions de combat modernes de tout type, l'OTAN dispose de la plus formidable force aérienne au monde, très supérieure aux forces russes (1300 appareils) et chinoises (1500 appareils). Consciente qu'elle ne pourra jamais rivaliser numériquement avec cette force, la Russie a développé une stratégie de défense aérienne multi-couches reposant sur des systèmes de défense anti-aérienne à longue, moyenne et courte portée, intégrée dans un réseau global et coordonnant ses actions avec l'importante flotte de chasseurs russes de plus de 800 appareils Su27-30-35 et MIG-29, et les 130 intercepteurs MIG-31. Ainsi organisée, la défense anti-aérienne russe représente un challenge important pour les forces aériennes occidentales, qui doivent utiliser des avions de brouillage ou des appareils furtifs pour espérer garder la supériorité aérienne. Pour articuler cette puissance aérienne, qui représente aujourd'hui 80% de la puissance de feu de l'Alliance selon le British Defense Comittee, l'OTAN déploie un nombre important d'appareils de veille aérienne AWACS, de surveillance électronique, et une flotte massive d'avions ravitailleurs. Le missile à longue portée hypersonique R37M a été développé pour engager et abattre ces appareils, avec une portée supérieure à 300 km et une vitesse supérieure à Mach6. Destiné à équiper les intercepteurs rapides MIG-31 et les chasseurs lourds furtifs Su-57, le R37M permettra de repousser les appareils de soutien de l'OTAN très loin de la zone d'engagement, limitant de fait très sensiblement leurs performances. Un appareil qui, comme le F-35 américain, n'a qu'un rayon d'action de 1000 km, sera ainsi largement contraint s'il doit se ravitailler à 500 km de ses objectifs. En outre, les forces russes auront la possibilité de mener des « raids tactiques », des incursions rapides destinées à porter le danger au plus profond du dispositif adverse, suivi d'un retour rapide dans la zone de supériorité alliée. Au delà des AWACS et ravitailleurs, le nouveau missile menacera donc l'ensemble des appareils lourds de l'alliance atlantique, incluant les avions de transport en charge du train logistique transatlantique indispensable, ainsi que les appareils de patrouille maritime, surtout ceux évoluant à moyenne altitude comme le P8 Poséidon, très exposés dès qu'ils évolueront à moins de 2000 km d'une base aérienne russe. Les mêmes causes ayant les même conséquences, la Chine a elle-aussi développé un missile à très longue portée, estimée à 400 km, et destiné à abattre les appareils de soutien occidentaux. Le nouveau missile, dont la nomenclature est encore floue, a déjà été aperçu sous les ailes des J-11 et des J-16 de l'Armée Populaire de Libération. Ce type de missile n'a pas d'équivalent en Occident. En effet, les forces aériennes chinoises et russes dépendent beaucoup moins des appareils de soutien que leurs homologues occidentaux. En revanche, les états-majors de l'OTAN ont privilégié des missiles d'une portée inferieure, de l'ordre de 150 km, mais très efficaces contre les agiles chasseurs adverses, comme le missile européen Meteor. L'entrée en service du R37M devra donc engendrer une rapide évolution des doctrines aériennes de l'OTAN, comme dans la conception des appareils lourds, qui devront nécessairement être équipés de systèmes d'autodéfense performants capables de détecter, brouiller et leurrer de tels missiles. https://analysedefense.fr/blogs/articles/le-missile-air-air-tres-longue-portee-russe-r37m-entrera-bientot-en-service

All news