April 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace

Editorial: A Code Of Conduct For Aviation’s Recovery

Desperate times call for bold measures, and the $2.2 trillion coronavirus economic rescue package passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump certainly passes that test. Tucked into the gargantuan measure was $58 billion for airlines and cargo carriers, including $29 billion in grants to keep workers paid for the next six months, even if they are staffing empty flights. Boeing did not get the $60 billion directly that it had sought for aerospace manufacturers, but the aircraft giant and its suppliers still qualify for hefty rescue loans or guarantees.

The secretary general of the United Nations has called COVID-19 the worst crisis the world has seen since World War II, and governments have a duty to ensure that this unprecedented pandemic does not wipe out vital industries. But the torrent of rescue money could have negative side effects, and it is imperative that governments step back when the crisis subsides.

The market distortions of state aid already are apparent in the airline industry, where a lack of coordination among governments—even those within the EU—has tilted the playing field. And what if Boeing receives government backstops that Airbus has said it does not need?

It is increasingly likely that when the pandemic subsides, the aviation industry will be facing a long uphill march to recovery, rather than the quick bounce-back that had been hoped for. As such, we urge the industry's stakeholders to start looking ahead and taking steps that will position them to recover as quickly as possible. Consider this Code of Conduct:

Take care of your employees. You will need them to excel and work as a team when you recover. Do whatever possible to keep them healthy and well-informed. In the near term, furloughs, wage freezes and hiring freezes may be unavoidable to control costs. But prioritizing shareholders or senior executives over workers would create labor issues that could slow any recovery.

Take care of your customers. You will only recover if they recover, so be flexible in responding to their issues during the crisis. Relationships cemented during hard times will pay off, while fractured relationships could cause long-term damage.

Take care of your suppliers. Aviation manufacturers have spent decades pushing risk down to suppliers while trying to limit their rewards to reduce costs. If your suppliers do not survive or take too long to recover, all those risks will rebound onto you.

Take care of your industrial base. The Pentagon wields an enormous amount of buying power at the taxpayers' expense. That should be deployed to keep its supply base healthy in the near term, even if it is at the expense of delaying long-term capabilities.

Take care of your business. You need to come back more agile and flexible than ever to adjust to the immediate challenges of a recovery and to tackle future challenges unrelated to the coronavirus, such as climate change.

And what about taking care of shareholders? Consider that in one recent year Boeing returned nearly six times as much money to shareholders through stock buybacks and dividends as it invested in R&D. Or consider that U.S. airlines sent 96% of their free cash flow to shareholders over the last five years. Now that hard times have hit, taxpayers are being asked to step in and foot the bill to save the industry. Shareholders need healthy airlines and healthy manufacturers. They can wait their turn.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/editorial-code-conduct-aviations-recovery

On the same subject

January 23, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

Mme Parly : Le ministère des Armées n’est pas un « client vache à lait »
Posté dans Industrie, Politique de défense par Laurent Lagneau Le 22-01-2019 Certes, si la trajectoire financière établie par la Loi de programmation militaire [LPM] 2019-25, promulguée le 13 juillet dernier, est respectée, le budget des Armées va augmenter significativement au cours des prochaines années, avec, au total, une enveloppe de 295 milliards d'euros. Il s'agit de pouvoir moderniser des capacités clés, ce qui signifie un carnet de commandes bien rempli pour les industriels de l'armement. Pour autant, et comme l'avait déjà dit le président Macron en juillet 2017, « l'intérêt des armées doit primer sur les intérêts industriels. » Plus tard, lors de ses voeux aux Armées en janvier 2018, il avait remis une couche en évoquant un « meilleur rapport coût-efficacité » s'agissant des matériels. « L'État est aux côtés de ses industriels, il l'est pour les besoins de ses armées comme à l'export, mais j'attends la même exigence, la même transparence et le même esprit de responsabilité de nos industriels de défense. [...] Nous investissons [...] pour avoir les meilleurs prestations possibles », avait-il affirmé. Depuis, la transformation de la Direction générale de l'armement [DGA] a été amorcée. Il s'agit, entre autres, de revoir la façon dont sont conduits les programmes d'armement, en abandonnant la logique dite en « silo » au bénéfice d'un travail en « plateau ». L'objectif est ainsi de simplifier le cycle d'acquisition d'un équipement, tout en favorisant l'accélération et la réactivité des processus et en maîtrisant les coûts et les délais. Article complet: http://www.opex360.com/2019/01/22/mme-parly-le-ministere-des-armees-nest-pas-un-client-vache-a-lait/
October 30, 2020 | International, C4ISR

In a COVID-19 world, system integration is the best approach
Lt. Gen. David Mann (ret.) and Maj. Gen. Francis Mahon (ret.) As COVID-19 is adding “social distancing” and “PPE” to our everyday lexicon and making handshakes a thing of the past, Project Convergence's experimentation with artificial intelligence and integration is moving the U.S. Army closer to the realization that “any sensor, any shooter — or any sensor, best shooter” applies to more than solely the air and missile defense community. Project Convergence is validating the path to success in future combat operations by integrating capabilities of many systems and not solely hanging our hopes on a new, best artillery or aviation or maneuver system. Concurrently, it is validating the need for the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense system, or AIAMD. “See first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively” was the mantra of Army transformation in the early 2000s, and here we are, 20 years into the 21st century, with AIAMD modernization efforts on the cusp of achieving the first two elements of that axiom — which enables the last two. AIAMD's development has not been easy, but it is essential, as our adversaries have not taken a tactical pause. North Korea is now a nuclear state with intercontinental ballistic missiles and, as recently noted on Oct. 10, other missile initiatives underway. China is creating barrier islands, improving its air and missile forces, and building a carrier fleet. Russia has optimized Syria and Crimea as proving grounds for its capabilities and forces while regularly probing NATO and North American airspace. Iran has fired ballistic missiles against undefended U.S. bases, demonstrated technical and tactical prowess by executing an integrated and complex armed unmanned aerial system and cruise missile attack against Saudi Arabia, and provided nonstate actors an expanded poor man's air force. Cyber, too, is becoming “mainstream” among our adversaries, and two of our near peers are developing hypersonic weapons, as witnessed in Russia's recent Zircon cruise missile test. As the U.S. Army, and the military at large, look to the future, all acknowledge integrating systems achieves a synergistic effect from our limited number of sensors, weapon systems and munitions. Integration closes gaps and seams, and enables the timely application of fires while reducing the cost-per-intercept dilemma. Closed architectures are a thing of the past, as are stovepiped systems. We must leverage each other's data and information and apply the best available weapon to counter threat activities or inflict maximum damage upon an adversary. If the Army's Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor can provide an accurate launch point for a ballistic missile, shouldn't the Army's Precision Strike Munition or other long-range fires capability leverage this data in real time for an offensive strike? If an F-35 fighter jet detects aerial threats it cannot counter, shouldn't it pass this data via a joint architecture so the joint family of systems can defeat those threats? Project Convergence is endeavoring to expand integration and advance operating concepts to leverage all possible capabilities. It is a logical extension of a key AIAMD modernization effort — the Army's IAMD Battle Command System, or IBCS — which demonstrated impressive capabilities during a recent limited-user test. Patriot batteries executed near-simultaneous engagements against ballistic missiles and low-altitude cruise missiles, while using only Sentinel targeting data provided to IBCS. Multiple capabilities operating as an integrated system — leveraging one element's information and another's lethality to defeat a complex and integrated attack — represents true integration. The Missile Defense Agency's integration efforts with the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems, and its recent successful flight test, also demonstrate the power of an integrated approach. Specifically, this capability enables earlier engagements, expanded battlespace, an increase in defended area, flexible firing doctrines, interceptor optimization and the tightening of operational seams. We cannot afford to slow these efforts or take our eye off the objectives and capabilities these programs will deliver. IBCS is approaching a key milestone decision, which will enable low-rate production to begin, execute additional development and operational tests, and field an initial operational capability in 2022. Further integrating IBCS with other Army systems must be a future priority: It is the standard bearer for air and missile defense integrated operations and a key enabler for dealing with complex and integrated attacks. This investment requires sustained support from the Department of Defense and Congress as well as priority funding as we wrestle with flat budgets and COVID-19's fiscal challenges and potential bills. The Army is expected to add IBCS to Project Convergence — a good plan, but this action cannot become a distraction or diversion of resources that slows its development and fielding. IBCS, as well as the integration of Patriot and THAAD, are critical to success in today's tactically and technically challenging operations, which are stressing the force. Our integration efforts must expand to all joint air and missile defense systems and to our allies and partners, who remain essential to our success. AIAMD will also be a major contributor to the Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept and the Air Force's Advanced Battle Management System — two key programs focused on integration at the theater level. COVID-19 has changed our lives in many ways and will levy a bill on our defense budgets. We cannot allow integration programs or initiatives to become COVID-19 casualties because seeing first and understanding first are the most critical elements in managing a crisis and keeping it from becoming a catastrophe. Retired Lt. Gen. David Mann led U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. He has also commanded Army air and missile defense forces in Iraq, Southwest Asia and the United States. Retired Maj. Gen. Francis Mahon served as the director for strategy, policy and plans at North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command. He also commanded Army air and missile defense forces in Southwest Asia, South Korea and the United States. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/c2-comms/2020/10/29/in-a-covid-19-world-system-integration-is-the-best-approach/
August 9, 2018 | International, Aerospace

UK welcomes US participation in Tempest fighter jet concept
Pat Host The United Kingdom plans to work closely with US industry as it develops its next-generation Tempest fighter jet concept, according to the UK defence secretary. “We have a great tradition at producing the best fighters in the world and we have a great tradition of having that national sovereign capability, and we are never going to be wanting to surrender that,” Gavin Williamson told an audience on 7 August at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. “In terms of actually working with international partners, we're very open to it.” Williamson announced the Tempest concept in mid-July at the UK Farnborough International Airshow. The Tempest team currently comprises BAE Systems, Leonardo, MBDA, and Rolls-Royce. The United Kingdom wants a Tempest business case by the end of the year, a final investment decision by 2025, and the aircraft flying by 2035. The United States is home to leading fighter jet companies Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Lockheed Martin is developing the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), developed the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor, and supports the F-16 Fighting Falcon while Boeing supports the F-15 Eagle. The United Kingdom is a partner on the F-35 programme. There is already international interest in Tempest. Japan has approached the United Kingdom about participating, having had an “exchange of opinions” about the possibility of a joint air combat project. Japan is looking to replace its Air Self-Defense Force's (JASDF's) Mitsubishi F-2 fighters. https://www.janes.com/article/82256/uk-welcomes-us-participation-in-tempest-fighter-jet-concept

All news